Virendra Kumar Agrawal v. Gujarat Sindhi Cement Ltd & Ors.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent no.1-complainant. The learned APP appears for the State.

These three petitions have been filed by the original accused no.3 Criminal Case Nos. 830/M/2000, 831/M/2000 832/M/2000, instituted 2 by the respondent no.1 for dishonour of the following cheques: ---------------------------------------------------- Sr.No. Cheque no. Date Amount (Rs.) ----------------------------------------------------

13584 13593 13592 13594 13595 13691 13660 13661 25/2/2000 29/2/2000 29/2/2000 29/2/2000 1/3/2000 24/4/2000 15/6/2000 15/6/2000 34,46,000/- 50,00,000/- 1,00,00,000/- 34,46,000/- 30,00,000/- 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- 25,00,000/- ---------------------------------------------------- The amount dishonoured cheques Rs.3,23,92,000/-. Against present petitioner - accused no.3 process issued 26th September 2000 petitioner approached Sessions Court revision application against

process issued Criminal Case No.831/M/2000. However, filing revision and, therefore, M.A.No.1378 2006 3 condonation filing revision application dismissed learned Sessions Court August

2006. In petitions, 8th petitioner approached Court directly. Hence petitions Article 227 Constitution Section 482 Cr.P.C. The reason advanced support petitions cheques petitioner holding of Managing Director accused no.1 - Company i.e. M/s. V.K. Industries Ltd., though continued a Director Company. It further submitted holding Director in-charge responsible management accused no.1 - Company and, therefore, cannot prosecuted offence punishable Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881. support submissions learned counsel In the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decision : (1) Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & anr. Vs. State issued 26/9/2000 challenged revision application ground (b) complaints, complaints recorded, charge framed and the trial has started as of March 2005 onwards.

There is no doubt that the order of issuance process challenged criminal revision application 2006 application condonation delay. The 6 revision application numbered contrary a number only. The condonation application dismissed Sessions Court Mumbai 8th August 2006, whereas remaining complaints the petitioner has directly approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings.

In the complaints filed by the present respondent no.1, almost similar averments pertinent reproduce averments made in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the said complaint as under: "(3) After reconciliation of various Accounts in respect of the outstanding Liability, which the Accused Company had towards the Complainants and as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22nd September, 1998, between the Complainants and the Accused Company, the Accused Company had admitted a total principal liability of Rs. 5,68,92,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Sixty Eight Lac Ninety Two Thousand only). Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the 7 said Memorandum of Understanding dated 22nd September 1998. (4) A Supplemental Agreement dated 6th May, 1999, was also entered into between the Complainants and the Accused Company. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit "C" is a copy of the said Supplemental Agreement dated 6th May,

1999. (5) In furtherance of the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 22nd September, 1998, and Supplemental Agreement dated 6th May, 1999, the Accused Company issued the following three cheques, all drawn on Union Bank of India, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Mumbai - 400

023...." In 8 specifically stated accused nos.1, 3, 4 7 personally served delivery 11th August 2000 accused responsible charge activities accused company. Accused no.7 signatory cheques pointed 11 complaint. It 8 averments paragraphs 3, 4 5 the Memorandum Understanding 22nd September 1998 Supplemental Agreement 6th May, 1999 signed, accused - company issued the dishonoured cheques. The cheques were post dated.

The learned counsel for the petitioner when called upon, submitted a Annual Report accused - company - M/s. V.K. Industries Ltd. ending 31st March, 2000 report present petitioner holding of Managing Director by Mr. M.C. Agrawal petitioner continued the Directors company. The learned counsel respondent no.1 referred a number documents signed between parties support contentions cheques issued petitioner responsible affairs administration company, though relinquished Managing Director financial 1999-2000. However, Memorandum Understanding 22/9/1998 signed petitioner behalf 9 accused - company. Similarly Supplemental Agreement 6/5/1999 signed documentary evidence undertaking furnished by the petitioner in the following words, in the supplementary agreement, "I, V.K. AGRAWWALA, son of Shri Ramprakash Agarwal, acting Chairman Messrs. V.K. Industries Limited personal capacity undertake guarantee performance Memorandum Understanding herein executed between Gujarat Sidhee Cement Limited Esteco V.K. Group companies. In non-performance original MoU

22.9.98 Supplemental Agreement

6.5.1999, I irrevocably undertake / affirm I liable discharge financial obligations Esteco / V.K. Group Companies Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd. personal capacity. " There affidavit signed petitioner 29th February 2000 behalf accused company. The statutory notice issued - 10 complainant - company replied behalf accused-company through Solicitors 24th August

2000. Para 4 clearly indicates 23rd August 2000 a meeting between petitioner representing accused-company representatives complainant - company. In accused Mr.Sudhir R. Naik, Mr.R.K. Gupta, Mr. Harvinder Singh Kapila Mr.T.M.Sharma longer accused - company capacity Directors. Then something balance 31st March

2000. It signed behalf Board accused - company Mr.M.C. Agrawal the Managing Director present petitioner Mr. V.K. Agrawal as the Director on 24th August 2000.

8. All these documents, prima facie, indicate cheques presented, petitioner responsible management accused - company and, therefore, a triable respondent no.1 - complainant company against petitioner. It invoke inherent powers Section 482 11 Cr.P.C. proceedings belated stage and on the face of the above documents referred for prima facie purposes.

The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel petitioner applicable instant whether petitioner charge / responsible affairs accused company a matter required decided by adducing evidence on the face of the documents as referred to hereinabove.

Hence the petitions fail and they are hereby rejected summarily.

(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)