Jai Vikrant @ Jay Vikrant v. The State of Jharkhand

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate : Mr. Bhola N. Ojha, Spl. P.P. : None ….. By the Court:-

Heard the parties. Though notice issued to the opposite party no.2 has been validly served yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in- spite of repeated calls.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby and where under, cognizance under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been taken inter alia against the Cr.M.P. No.751 of 2024 1 ( 2025:JHHC:13451) petitioner and summons were directed to be issued against him in connection with Complaint Case No. 11944 of 2023 instituted under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was the director of Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. issued a cheque signed by co-accused- Subir Kumar Sahu of Rs.75,00,000/- in discharge of part of the legal liability of the said Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque, the same was dishonoured. The complainant issued legal notice to the petitioner and co-accused persons of demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The same was not paid. The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 11944 of 2023 in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi after considering the facts of the case found sufficient materials to constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and ordered for issuance of summons inter alia against the petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to page no. 22 of the brief which is a copy of the photocopy of the said cheque leaf and submits that the same was signed only by the co-accused-Subir Kumar Sahu but not the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner was actively involved in financial decision making of Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as mentioned in paragraph no.12 of the petition that the petitioner ceased to be the director of the company since 2017 itself and in this respect, learned counsel for the Cr.M.P. No.751 of 2024 2 ( 2025:JHHC:13451) petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Form No. DIR- 11 which goes to show that the petitioner has resigned from the office of the director of Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. from 29.05.2017. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamalkishor Shrigopal Taparia vs. India Ener-Gen Private Limited & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 223, paragraph no. 16 of which reads as under:-

16. Upon perusal of the record and submissions of the parties, it is evident that the Appellant was neither a signatory to the dishonoured cheques nor was he actively involved in the financial decision-making of the company. Moreover, he resigned from the post of independent non- executive director on 03.05.2017, duly notified through Form DIR-11 and DIR-12 to the Registrar of Companies.

It is submitted that in that case, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if an accused person in a case involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is neither signatory to the dishonoured cheque nor he was actively involved in the financial decision-making company having resigned from the director of the company, such criminal proceeding should be quashed against such person. Hence, it submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that at this nascent stage, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner ought not be quashed and submits that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is not the Cr.M.P. No.751 of 2024 3 ( 2025:JHHC:13451) signatory to the cheque issued by M/s. Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant on 15.04.2023. The copy of Annexure-4 goes to show that in fact the petitioner was not having any relationship with Shree Gopi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. after his resignation from the office of director of the company with effect from 29.05.2017 much prior to issuance of such cheque. The Form No. DIG 11 goes to show that the petitioner was neither the director of the company either at the time of issue of the cheque or any time of filing of the complaint.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 11944 of 2023 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No. 11944 of 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.