# M/s Kitply Industries & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 430
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 617 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-kitply-industries-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52279
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - bunch of cases- commercial
transaction between parties- number of cheques
allegedly issued in favour of complainant by
applicant
company
dishonoured-
complaint
proceedings under Section 138, 141 and 142 NI
Act- summons issued against applicants n
excluding the applicant company as it was not
arrayed
as
accused-
summoning
order
challenged
under
criminal
revision-matter
remanded- applicant company impleaded to fill
legal lacuna-fresh summoning order passedagain challenged in criminal revision-revision
dismissed- both the summoning order and order
dismissing revision under challenge.

B. Applicants have no right to challenge the
order of revisional court remanding the matterno legal requirement of the accused to be heard
at the stage of summoning-complaint-opposite
party has specifically stated opposite party
(Company) has issued
cheques-trial court
committed no error in considering impleadment
application-however, trial court committed two
errors-impleadment application not decided
finally- reason assigned to summon applicants
suffered with a legal error-complainant could
not be penalised- summoning orders in all cases
set aside- matter remitted back to trial court to
be decided afresh-Application disposed of.
(Paras 9 and 10)

HELD:
The impugned order has two errors, first
impleadmentapplication was not finally decided
and secondly, reason assigned tosummon
applicants suffered with a legal error, however,
for botherrors, the complainant could not be
7 All. M/s Kitply Industries & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
431
penalized since he has doneeverything to
summon applicants including the Company by
way offiling an impleadment application. [Para 9
(ix)]

In view of above, impugned summoning orders
in all theseapplications are set aside and matter
is remitted back to Trial Courtconcerned to
decide
the
impleadment
applications
in
accordance with law after hearing complainant
only as well as taking note of above referred
judgments. Applicants are not required to be
heard at this stage. The proceedings shall be
concluded within two months from today, if
there is no legal impediment. (Para 10)

Application disposed of. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,737 of 41,991. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39737 for what follows._

430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment
passed by Division Bench of this Court in
Virendra Gupta (supra) and relying upon
the
aforesaid
decisions,
the
criminal
revision was dismissed by the leaned
District Judge, Shamli by the impugned
order dated 6.4.2024.

26. The aforesaid discussion brings
the Court to the conclusion that if
confiscation proceedings are going on
before the Collector in respect of release of
a vehicle seized under the provisions of
U.P. Excise Act, 1910, the Judicial
Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to release
the same and this conclusion is drawn on
the basis of the law promulgated by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mustafa (supra)
and this Court in Virendra Gupta (Alld.)
(D.B.) (supra) which is authoritative law on
the subject.

27. Hence, both orders dated
19.12.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Shamli and dated 6.4.2024
passed by the District Judge, Shamli, in my
considered opinion are having no perversity
or legal lacuna and need no interference or
direction to be issued by this Court in the
instant Petition. The Petition under article
227 of the Constitution of India has no
force and is liable to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 430
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 617 of 2020
And
Other Connected Cases

M/s Kitply Industries & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Amit Saxena, Sr. Advocate, Sri Anupam
Laloriya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Mithilesh Kumar, A.G.A., Sri Sushil
Shukla

A. Criminal Law - bunch of cases- commercial
transaction between parties- number of cheques
allegedly issued in favour of complainant by
applicant
company
dishonoured-
complaint
proceedings under Section 138, 141 and 142 NI
Act- summons issued against applicants n
excluding the applicant company as it was not
arrayed
as
accused-
summoning
order
challenged
under
criminal
revision-matter
remanded- applicant company impleaded to fill
legal lacuna-fresh summoning order passedagain challenged in criminal revision-revision
dismissed- both the summoning order and order
dismissing revision under challenge.

B. Applicants have no right to challenge the
order of revisional court remanding the matterno legal requirement of the accused to be heard
at the stage of summoning-complaint-opposite
party has specifically stated opposite party
(Company) has issued
cheques-trial court
committed no error in considering impleadment
application-however, trial court committed two
errors-impleadment application not decided
finally- reason assigned to summon applicants
suffered with a legal error-complainant could
not be penalised- summoning orders in all cases
set aside- matter remitted back to trial court to
be decided afresh-Application disposed of.
(Paras 9 and 10)

HELD:
The impugned order has two errors, first
impleadmentapplication was not finally decided
and secondly, reason assigned tosummon
applicants suffered with a legal error, however,
for botherrors, the complainant could not be
7 All. M/s Kitply Industries & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
431
penalized since he has doneeverything to
summon applicants including the Company by
way offiling an impleadment application. [Para 9
(ix)]

In view of above, impugned summoning orders
in all theseapplications are set aside and matter
is remitted back to Trial Courtconcerned to
decide
the
impleadment
applications
in
accordance with law after hearing complainant
only as well as taking note of above referred
judgments. Applicants are not required to be
heard at this stage. The proceedings shall be
concluded within two months from today, if
there is no legal impediment. (Para 10)

Application disposed of. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Aneeta Hada Vs M/S Godfather Travels and
Tours Pvt. Ltd. 2012(5) SCC 661

2. N. Harihara Krishnan Vs J Thomas, 2018 (13)
SCC 663

3.Himanshu Vs B. Shivamurthy & anr., 2019 (3)
SCC 797

4.Sunita
Palita
Vs
M/S.
Panchami
Stone
Quarry:(2022)10 SCC 152

5.Siby Thomas Vs M/s. Somany Ceramics
Ltd:(2024)1 SCC 348

6.Dilip
Hiraramani
Vs
Bank
Of
Baroda:
(2019)3SCC 797

7.Ajay Kumar Radheshyam Goenka Vs Tourism
Finance Corpn. of India Ltd, (2023) 10 SCC 545

8.M/s Narender Kumar @Brothers Vs St. of UP &
ors., 2022: AHC:211261

9.Sunita Palita Vs Panchami Stone Quarry,
(2022) 10SCC 152

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Present bunch of applications filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are arising out of
commercial transaction between parties,
wherein number of cheques allegedly
issued in favour of Complainant by
applicant Company were got dishonoured
and the Complainant has initiated separate
proceedings under the provisions of Section
138 of Negotiation Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as "NI Act").

2. Legal and factual issue involved in
all cases are common, therefore, all the
applications are being decided by this
common judgment.

Factual Matrix

3. In order to appreciate factual and
legal issue involved in present cases, it
would be relevant to reproduce relevant
documents annexed in leading matter being
Application under Section 482 No. 617 of
2020 as under:

A. Complainant has filed a
complaint under Sections 138, 141 and 142
of NI Act and the same in its entirety is
reproduced hereinafter:

"श्रीमान िी,

ननिेदन है कक प्राथी पाश्िगिाथ बुड
प्रोडक्टस का माललक है। और उसके समथर्
कारोबार की देखभाल करर्ा है। पररिादी की
फमग विनियर कौर िो प्लाई िुड ि प्लाई
बोडग बिािे के काम आती है, का निमागर्
करती है पररिादी की फमग द्िारा ककट
प्लाई इन्रस्रीि शाहबाद रोड थािा लसविल
लाइन्स रामपुर को विनियर कौर सप्लाई
ककया र्या था। जिसके भुर्ताि में ककट
प्लाई इन्ड० द्िारा एक िैक सिं०- 084178
हदिािंक- 05.05.2012 मुबललर् 5,00,000/- रू०
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
का पिंिाब िेशिल बैंक लसविल लाइन्स
रामपुर का हदया र्या था। पररिादी द्िारा
उक्त िैक नियमािुसार भुर्ताि हेतु अपिे
बैंक,
बैंक
ऑफ
बडौदा
रामपुर
में
नियमािुसार
प्रस्तुत
ककया।
ककन्तु
विपक्षीर्र् का उक्त िेक बबिा भुर्ताि के
इस हटप्पर्ी के साथ कक खाते में िि
अपयागप्त है।" िापस कर ददया र्या।
स्िसकी सूिना प्रािी को पिंिाब नेशनल बैंक
के मेमो ददनािंक- 16.05.2012 के द्िारा
हुयी।

यह कक प्राथी िे हदिािंक -
22.05.2015 को अपिे अधििक्ता द्िारा
उक्त िैक के भुर्ताि हेतु उपरोक्त
व्यजक्तयों को िोहटस हदया। िोहटस प्राजप्त
के उपरािंत भी प्राथी को उक्त रकम का
भुर्ताि िहीिं ककया र्या। जिसका भुर्ताि
करिे के अलभयुक्तर्र् िैिानिक रूप से
जिम्मेदार है। भुर्ताि ि होिे के कारर्
िाद कारर् उत्पन्ि हुआ है। अलभयुक्तर्र्
उपरोक्त के ककट प्लाई इन्डस्रीि के
पदाधिकारी है और समाि रूप से फैक्री के
कायग एििं भुर्ताि के ललये जिम्मेदार है।

अर्ः श्रीमान िी से प्रािाना है कक
असभयुक्र्र्ण को र्लब िरमाकर िारा-
138, 141, 142 एन०आई० एक्ट के अन्द्र्र्ार्
सिा दी िािे एििं पररिादी को उपरोक्र्
िेक की रकम का भुर्र्ान मय हिाा खिाा
ददलिाया िाये। प्रािी के र्िाह एकाउन्द्टेन्द्ट
रोहन ससिंह ि बैंक कमािारी एििं डाक
विभार् के कमािारी है।"

B. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rampur
vide
impugned
order
dated
13.08.2012 summoned applicants No. 2 to
5, (the Company, i.e., Applicant No. 1 was
not summoned since it was not arrayed as
an accused) to face trial and said order is
reproduced hereinafter:

"पत्रािली आदेश हेर्ु ननयर् है। प्रािी
के विद्िान अचििक्र्ा की बहस र्लबी पर सुना
िा िुका है। पत्रािली का अिलोकन ककया।

पररिादी के विद्िान अचििक्र्ा ने
पररिाद प्रथर्ुर् कर ननिेदन ककया है कक विपक्षी
द्िारा मु० 5,00,000/- का िैक सिंख्या 084178
ददनािंककर्- 05.05.2012 प्रािी को ददया र्या
स्िसे प्रािी द्िारा अपने बैंक पिंिाब नेशनल
बैंक, ससविल लाइन्द्स, रामपुर में लर्ाया र्या
लेककन िनरासश अपयााप्र् होने के कारण
भुर्र्ान नही हो सका। विपक्षी को रस्िथटडा
नोदटस भेिा र्या किर भी उनके द्िारा भुर्र्ान
नही ककया र्या। इन और अन्द्य आिारों का
भुर्र्ान मय हिाा खिाा ददलाये िाने के सलये
ननिेदन ककया र्या है।

पत्रािली के अिलोकन से विददर्
होर्ा है कक विपक्षी द्िारा मु० पााँि लाख रूपये
की िनरासश का िैक सिंख्या 084178 ददनािंककर्-
05.05.2012 प्रािी को ददया र्या लेककन यह
िैक पिंिाब नेशनल बैंक के पत्र ददनािंककर्-
16.05.2012 द्िारा बर्ैर भुर्र्ान के िापस कर
ददया र्या। िैक विपक्षी सिं0- 4 ि 5 द्िारा िारी
ककये र्ये बर्ाये र्ये है।

ददनािंक- 22.05.2012 को विपक्षी को
पिंिीकृर् नोदटस भुर्र्ान हेर्ु प्रेवषर् ककया र्या
लेककन विपक्षी द्िारा आि र्क भुर्र्ान नही
ककया र्या। यह पररिाद ददनािंक- 21.06.2012
को सिंस्थिर् ककया र्या।
7 All. M/s Kitply Industries & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
433

विपक्षी को रस्िथटडा नोदटस प्रेवषर्
ककये िाने से 30 ददन की समयािचि पर
नोदटस की र्ामीला पयााप्र् मानी िार्ी है।
पररिादी ने अपने बयान िारा- 200 द०प्र०सिं० के
माध्यम से पररिाद किानक का समिान ककया
है र्िा िारा- 202 द०प्र०सिं० के अन्द्र्र्ार् िैक
भुर्र्ान न होने का प्रपत्र मेमोरेडम प्रेवषर्
नोदटस की रस्िथरी रसीद मूल रूप से दाखखल
की र्यी है। पररिाद िारा 138 के अपेक्षाओिं को
पूरा करर्ा है। उपरोक्र् वििेिना के प्रकाश में
विपक्षीर्ण देिेन्द्र ससिंह, सुरेन्द्र िन्द्र बरनािर्
िारा 138 एन०आई० एक्ट के अन्द्र्र्ार् र्लब
ककये िाने योग्य है।

अर्ः विपक्षीर्ण देिेन्द्र ससिंह मैनेिर
कासमाक, सुरेश िन्द्र बरनािर्, िी०एम०प्लान्द्ट
शाहबाद रोड ससविल लाईन्द्स, रामपुर को
अन्द्र्र्ार् िारा- 138 एन०आई० एक्ट के
अन्द्र्र्ार् र्लब ककया िार्ा है। पररिादी
आिचयक पैरिी अन्द्दर सप्र्ाह करे र्िा सूिी
र्िाहान दाखखल करें। पत्रािली िाथर्े हास्िरी
असभयुक्र् ददनािंक 09.09.2012 को पेश हो।"

C. Applicants No. 4 and 5 being
aggrieved by above order, have filed a
criminal revision, which was allowed by
order dated 18.06.2013 and matter was
remitted back to Trial Court to pass a fresh
order taking note of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/S
Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.
2012(5) SCC 661. Relevant part of order is
mentioned hereinafter:

"अिीता होडा बिाम मै० र्ोर् फादसग
टेिलसग एििं टूरल्स लल० 2012 (77) ए०सी०सी०
924 में माििीय सिोच्ि न्यायालय की
व्यिस्था है। उक्त व्यिस्था में माििीय सिोच्ि
न्यायालय द्िारा यह स्पष्ट ककया र्या है कक
कम्पिी आहद िो व्यजक्त कम्पिी के कायग की
देखरेख करिे िाले है िह भी िारा 141
परकाम्य
विलेख अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत
अलभयुक्त है। क्योंकक उिका दानयत्ि उक्त कहािं
है कक अन्तर्गत समझा र्या है। माननीय
सिोच्ि न्द्यायालय द्िारा यह थपष्ट ककया र्या
है कक कम्पनी के पदाचिकारी समय समय पर
बदल सकर्े है और कम्पनी छोड कर िा सकर्े
है िब कक कम्पनी एक न्द्यानयक व्यस्क्र् और
कम्पनी एक आिचयक लोर्ो र्िा प्रारस्म्भक
अपराचिक दानयत्क्ि कम्पनी का होर्ा। र्िा
मुख्य दानयत्क्ि किनो का ही होर्ा और यहद
कम्पिी के विरूद्ि अलभयोिि िही िलाया
र्या है तो दूसरी ि तीसरी श्रेर्ी में आिे िाले
व्यजक्तयों को कम्पिी की ओर से उिरदायी िही
मािा िा सकता है। क्योंकक दूसरी ि तीसरी
श्रेर्ी में आिे िाले व्यजक्तयों का उिरदानयत्ि
को नििागररत करिे से पहले कम्पिी के
उिरदानयत्ि का नििागररत ककया िािा पराकाम्य
ललखखत अधिनियम की िारा 141 के अन्तर्गत
आिश्यक है। माननीय सिोच्ि न्द्यायालय की
उक्र् व्यिथिा3 माननीय न्द्यायमूनर्ार्ण की एक
िृहद पीठ की व्यिथिा है स्िसमें बबना कम्पनी
को असभयुक्र् बनाये उसके पदाचिकाररयों के
विरूद्ि अपराचिक मामला योस्िर् ककया िा
सकर्ा है या नही उक्र् बबन्द्दु पर माननीय
सिोच्ि न्द्यायालय के पूिा में ददये र्ये सभन्द्न
सभन्द्न मर्ो की वििेिना माननीय िृहद पीठ
द्िारा की र्ई है। उल्लेखिीय है कक प्रस्तुत
प्रकरर् मे पररिादपत्र न्यायालय में माह िूि
2012 में प्रस्तुत ककया र्या है और उससे कुछ
ही हदि पहले हदिािंक- 27.04.2012 को माििीय
सिोच्ि न्यायालय की िृहद पीठ की उक्त
व्यिस्था आयी है और ऐसा समय है कक
पररिादी के विद्िाि अधििक्ता भी अपर
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
न्यायालय के सिंज्ञाि में उक्त विधि व्यिस्था ि
आ पायी हो। अतः उक्त व्यिस्था िो माििीय
सिोच्ि न्यायालय की ििीितम व्यिस्था है
उसके अिुसरर् में समस्त बबन्दु पर अिर
न्यायालय द्िारा अपिे प्रश्िर्त आदेश में मे
कोई निष्किग िही ककया िा सका है अतः ऐसी
जस्थनत में यह आिश्यक हो िाता है कक
माििीय सिोच्ि न्यायालय की उक्त व्यिस्था
2012 (77) ए०सी०सी० 924 में प्रनतपाहदत
लसद्िान्त के आिार पर अिर न्यायालय पुिः
विपक्षी/पररिादी के पररिाद पत्र का नििागरर्
ककया और विधि के अिुसार आदेश पाररत करें।
आदेश

ननर्रानीकर्ाा
की
उक्र्
दास्ण्डक
ननर्रानी थिीकार की िार्ी है र्िा अिर
न्द्यायालय का प्रचनर्र् आदेश ददनािंककर्-
13.08.2012 ननरथर् करर्े हुये पत्रािली इस
ननर्रानी मे ददये र्ये ननष्कषों के आिार पर
पुनः सुनिाई हेर्ु अिर न्द्यायालय को प्रनर्प्रेवषर्
की िार्ी है। अिर न्द्यायालय िर्ामान विचिक
स्थिनर् को देखर्े हुए पुनः पररिाद पत्र का
वििारण करे और अपना आदेश पाररर् करें।
पररिादी अिर न्द्यायालय के समक्ष ददनािंक-
18.07.2012 को उपस्थिर् हो।"

D. The Complainant in order to
fill up a legal lacuna, filed an impleadment
application to implead applicant No. 1 i.e.
M/S Kitply Industries, to which objections
were also filed, though after remand the
applicants have no lis before Trial Court.
On remand, Trial Court passed a fresh
impugned
summoning
order
dated
03.09.2015 and for reference relevant part
of order is mentioned hereinafter:

"उल्लेखिीय
है
कक
सम्बजन्ित
कम्पिी को पररिादी िे पक्षकार िहीिं बिाया
र्या है, जिसके सिंदभग में पररिादी िे प्राथगिा पत्र
हदिािंककत
16-01-2015
मैससग ककट
प्लाई
इण्डस्रीि लल० को पक्षकार बिाये िािे हेतु
प्रस्तुत ककया तथा उसमें कथि ककया र्या कक
उसिे मैससग ककट प्लाई इण्डस्रीि लल० को
विधिित रूप से िोहटस भी दे हदया है। विपक्षी
पी० के० र्ोयिका द्िारा दाखखल आपवि
हदिािंककत 30-03-2015 के द्िारा यह कहा कक
प्रस्तुत प्रकरर् में अब मैससग ककट प्लाई
इण्डस्रीि लल० को पक्षकार बिाये िािे हेतु
प्राथगिा पत्र स्िीकार िहीिं ककया िा सकता,
क्योंकक िह सिंशोिि की प्रकृनत का है।

एन०आई०एक्ट की िारा 141 कम्पनी
द्िारा अपराििं ककये िाने के सिंदभा में प्रावििान
करर्ी है, स्िसके अनुसार यदद िारा 138
एन०आई०एक्ट के अन्द्र्र्ार् कम्पनी द्िारा
अपराि ककया िार्ा है र्ो ऐसी पररस्थिनर्यों में
कम्पनी सदहर् उन सभी व्यस्क्र्यों िो कक
अपराि ककये िार्े समय कम्पनी के कक्रया
कलापों के सलये उत्तरदायी िे, उक्र् अपराि के
सलये वििारण ककया िायेर्ा ि उऩ्हे दिंडडर्
ककया िायेर्ा। प्रस्तुत प्रकरर् में प्रश्िर्त िैक'
ककट प्लाई इण्डस्रीि लल० के द्िारा िारी ककया
र्या है। अतः ऐसी पररजस्थनत में िारा 141
एि० आई०एक्ट के प्रावििाि के अिुसार
कम्पिी मैससग ककट प्लाई इण्डस्रीि लल0 सहहत
उसे िारी करिे िाले व्यजक्त ि कम्पिी के
किया कलापों के उिरदायी व्यजक्तयों का
िेज िारर् प्रस्तुत प्रकरर् के द्िारा होिा
िाहहये, परन्तु प्रस्तुत प्रकरर् में मैससग ककट
प्लाई इण्डस्रीि लल० को पररिादी िे अलभयुक्त
िहीिं बिाया। इस स्तर पर यह स्पष्ट करिा
उधित होर्ा कक न्यायालय में ककसी भी अपराि
का वििारर् पुललस द्िारा वििेििा उपरािंत
7 All. M/s Kitply Industries & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
435
दाखखल आरोप पत्र के आिार पर न्यायालय
द्िारा सिंज्ञाि लेकर या स्ियिं न्यायालय द्िारा
पररिाद में सिंज्ञाि लेिे के उपरािंत िािंि के
पश्िात
ककया
िाता
है
तथा
दोिो
ही
पररजस्थनतयों
में
न्यायालय
या
पुललस/वििेििाधिकारी के ऊपर यह दानयत्ि है
कक िह िािंि/वििेििा के दौराि प्रथम दृष्टया
सभी दोिी व्यजक्तयों को धिजन्हत कर उिके
विरूद्ि वििारर् प्रारिंभ करें। इसके ललये यह
िरूरी िहीिं है, जिि व्यजक्तयों के विरूद्ि
वििारर् ककया िािा है उि सभी का िाम
पररिाद या प्रथम सूििा ररपोटग में अिंककत हो।

अर्ः
उपरोक्र्
समथर्
व्याख्या,
माननीय उच्िर्म न्द्यायालय की उपरोक्र् विचि
व्यिथिा, माननीय ररिीिन न्द्यायालय द्िारा
पाररर् उपरोक्र् िखणार् ननणाय र्िा िारा 141
पराक्राम्य सलखखर् अचिननयम के प्रावििान को
दृस्ष्टर्र् रखर्े हुये इस स्तर पर प्रस्तुत प्रकरर्
में मैससग ककट प्लाई इण्डस्रीि लल० द्िारा
िेयरमैि, पी० के० र्ोयिका, एम०डी० र्ौरि
र्ोयिका, सधिि शबिम िमाल, मैिेिर कालमगक
देिेन्र लसिंह ि िी०एम प्लािंट सुरेश िन्र
बरिाित को िारा 138 परािम्य विलेख
अधिनियि में वििारर् हेतु तलब ककये िािे का
आिार पयागप्त है।
आदेश

असभयुक्र्र्ण
मैससा
ककट
प्लाई
इण्डथरीि सल० द्िारा िेयरमैन, पी०के०र्ोयनका,
र्ौरि र्ोयनका, शबनम िमाल, देिेन्द्र ससिंह ि
सुरेश िन्द्र बरनािर् को िारा- 138 पराक्रम्य
विलेख अचिननयम के अन्द्र्र्ार् वििारण हेर्ु
बिररये सम्मन ददनािंक 03.10.2015 को र्लब
ककया
िाये।
पररिादी
आिचयक
पैरिी
ननयमानुसार करें।"

E. Aforesaid order was again
challenged before Revisional Court at the
behest of all applicants, however, the same
was dismissed vide impugned order dated
15.05.2019 and relevant part thereof is
mentioned hereinafter:

"उक्र् ननर्रानी सिं०-२३०/१२ में ददये
र्ये ददशा ननदेश का अनुपालन करर्े हुये अिर
न्द्यायालय द्िारा ददनािंक ०३.०९.२०१५ को निीन
आदेश करर्े हुये मैससा ककटप्लाई इण्डथरीि
सल० द्िारा िेयरमेन पी०के० र्ोयनका, र्ौरि
र्ोयनका, शबनम िमाल, देिेन्द्र ससहिं ि सुरेश
िन्द्र बरनािर् को िारा १३८ पराक्रम्य विलेख
अचिननयम के र्हर् वििारण हेर्ु र्लब ककया,
स्िससे क्षुब्ि होकर ननर्रानीकर्ाार्ण द्िारा
िर्ामान ननर्रानी प्रथर्ुर् की र्यी। मुख्यतः इस
कथि के साथ कक निर्रािी न्यायालय द्िारा
ऐसा कोई आदेश पाररत िहीिं ककया र्या, जिसके
आिार पर मैससग ककटप्लाई इण्डस्रीि लल० को
अलभयुक्त बिाया िाये। माििीय उच्ितम
न्यायालय की विधि व्यिस्था अिीता हाडा आहद
बिाम र्ौड फादसग रेिल्सग एण्ड टूरल्स प्रा०लल०
२०१२ (७७) ए०सी०सी०पृष्ठ ९२४ का वििरर्
ररिीिि न्यायालय के निर्गय में ककया र्या है।
परन्तु ररिीिि न्यायालय िे इस विधि व्यिस्था
के आिार पर पररिादी को यह अधिकार िहीिं
हदया कक िह मैससग ककटप्लाई इण्डस्रीि लल०
को पररिाद में अलभयुक्त बिायें। पररिादी का
प्राथगिा पत्र हदिािंककत १६.०१.२०१५ पूर्गतयािं
र्ैरकािूिी है। उिके विरूद्ि कोई मामला िारः
१३८ परािम्य विलेख अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत
िहीिं बिता है। मैससग ककटप्लाई निर्रािीकताग
सिं०१ को कोई विधिक िोहटस आहद भी प्रेवित
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िहीिं ककया र्या और ि ही प्रावििानित
समयािधि के अन्दर पररिाद उिके विरूद्ि
प्रस्तुत ककया र्या।

इस सन्द्दभा में यदद दास्ण्डक ननर्रानी
सिं०-२३०/२०१२ में पाररर् ननणाय ददनािंककर्
१८.०६.२०१३ को देखें र्ो उपरोक्त निर्रािी में
यही मुख्य तकिीकी आपवि उठायी र्यी थी कक
ककटप्लाई इण्डस्रीि लल० को पररिाद पत्र में
पक्षकार िहीिं बिाया र्या, िो कक आिश्यक है
और ि उसे िोहटस भेिा र्या, ि हदया र्या।
निर्रािी
न्यायालय
द्िारा
अपिे
आदेश
हदिािंककत १८.०६.२०१३ मे विधि व्यिस्था
अिीता हाडा आहद बिाम र्ौड फादसग रैिलसग
एण्ड टूरल्स प्रा० लल० २०१२(७७) ए०सी०सी०
पृष्ठ ९२४ में माििीय सिोच्ि न्यायालय द्िारा
यह स्पष्ट ककया र्या है कक कम्पिी और िो
व्यजक्त कम्पिी के कायग की देखरेख करिे िाले
है, िह भी िारा १४१ परािाम्य विलेख
अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत अलभयुक्त है, क्योंकक
उिका दानयत्ि उक्त िारा के अन्तर्गत समझा
र्या है। माििीय सिोच्ि न्यायालय द्िारा यह
स्पष्ट ककया र्या है कक कम्पिी के पदाधिकारी
समय समय पर बदल सकते है और कम्पिी
छोड़ कर िा सकते है, िबकक कम्पिी एक
न्यानयक व्यजक्त है और कम्पिी एक आिश्यक
पक्षकार होर्ी तथा प्रारजम्भक अपराधिक दानयत्ि
कम्पिी का होर्ा तथा मुख्य दानयत्ि कम्पिी
का ही होर्ा और यहद कम्पिी के विरूद्ि
अलभयोिि िहीिं िलाया र्या है तो दूसरी ि
तीसरी श्रेर्ी में आिे िाले व्यजक्तयों को कम्पिी
की ओर से उिरदायी होिा िहीिं कहा िा सकता
है। क्योंकक दूसरी ि र्ीसरी श्रेणी में आने िाले
व्यस्क्र्र्यों का उत्तरदानयत्क्ि का ननिाारण करने
से पहले कम्पनी के उत्तरदानयत्क्ि का ननिााररर्
ककया िाना पराक्रम्य विलेख अचिननयम की
िारा १४१ के अन्द्र्र्ार् आिचयक है। सम्मानीय
विचि व्यिथिा में यह प्रावििाननर् ककया र्या
कक दूसरी ि र्ीसरी श्रेणी में आने िाले
व्यस्क्र्यों के उत्तरदानयत्क्ि का ननिाारण करने से
पहले कम्पनी के उत्तरदानयत्क्ि का ननिाारण
आिचयक है। पराक्रम्य विलेख अचिननयम की
िारा १४१ के अन्द्र्र्ार् साि ही ननर्रानी
न्द्यायालय द्िारा यह भी ननष्कषा ददया र्या कक
माह िून २०१२ में पररिाद पत्र प्रथर्ुर् ककया
र्या है और उससे कुछ ही समय पहले ददनािंक
२७.०४.१२ को माननीय सिोच्ि न्द्यायालय की
िृहद पीठ की उक्र् विचि व्यिथिा आयी है।
ऐसा सम्भि है कक पररिादी के विद्िान
अचििक्र्ा या न्द्यायालय के सिंज्ञान में उक्र्
विचि व्यिथिा न आ पायी हो। अर्ः उक्र्
व्यिथिा िो माननीय सिोच्ि न्द्यायालय की
निीनर्म व्यिथिा है, उसके अनुसरण में उक्र्
बबन्द्दु पर अिर न्द्यायालय द्िारा अपने प्रचनर्र्
आदेश में कोई ननष्कषा नहीिं ददया िा सका है।
अर्ः
अिर
न्द्यायालय
माननीय
सिोच्ि
न्द्यायालय की विचि व्यिथिा अनीर्ा हाडा आदद
बनाम र्ौड िादसा रेिलसा एण्ड टूरल्स प्रा० सल०
२०१२(७७)ए०सी०सी०
१२४
में
प्रनर्पाददर्
ससद्िान्द्र्ों के आिार पर पुनः विपक्षी/पररिादी
के पररिाद पत्र का वििारण करे और आदेश
पाररर् करें। अर्ः ननर्रानी न्द्यायालय द्िारा
उक्र् के ननर्रानीकर्ाार्ण की र्लबी को विचि
विरूद्ि नहीिं बर्ाया िा। बजल्क माििीय
सिोच्ि न्यायालय द्िारा विधि व्यिस्था अिीता
हाडा आहद बिाम र्ौड फादसग रैिल्स एण्ड
टूरल्स प्रा० लल० २०१२ (७७) ए०सी०सी० पृष्ठ
१२४ में प्रनतपाहदत सम्मािीय लसद्िान्त को
दृजष्टर्त रखते हुये कम्पिी के सन्दभग में िूिंकक
7 All. M/s Kitply Industries & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
437
कोई निष्किग निर्गय में िहीिं हदया र्या था।
निर्रािी
स्िीकार
की
र्यी
थी।
निर्रािीकतागर्र् को र्लत विधि विरुद्ि तरीके
से तलब ककया र्या, ऐसा कोई निष्किग िहीिं
हदया र्या तथा आदेश मात्र निर्रािी में हदये
र्ये निष्किों के आिार पर पुिः सुििाई हेतु
हदया र्या। उक्त निर्रािी में हदये र्ये निष्किग
ि निर्गय के विरूद्ि निर्रािीकतागर्र् द्िारा
कहीिं कोई कायगिाही की र्यी, ऐसा ि साक्ष्य है,
ि कथि। अतः निर्रािी में हदये र्ये निष्किग
पक्षों के मध्य अजन्तम हुये और उपरोक्त
निष्किग ि निदेश के अिुपालि में अिर
न्यायालय द्िारा हदिािंक ०३.०९.१५ को प्रश्िर्त
आदेश पाररत ककया र्या है। विद्िाि अिर
न्यायालय द्िारा प्रश्िर्त आदेश में निष्किग
हदया र्या कक- " एन० आई०एक्ट की िारा १४१
कम्पनी द्िारा अपराि ककये िाने के सन्द्दभा में
प्रावििान करर्ी है, स्िसके अनुसार यदद िारा
१३८ एन०आई०एक्ट के अन्द्र्र्ार् कम्पनी द्िारा
अपराि ककया िार्ा है र्ो ऐसो पररस्थिनर्यों में
कम्पनी सदहर् उन सभी व्यस्क्र्यों िो कक
अपराि ककये िार्े समय कम्पनी के कक्रया
कलापों के सलये उत्तरदायी िे, उक्र् अपराि के
सलये वििारण ककया िायेर्ा ि उन्द्हें दस्ण्डर्
ककया िायेर्ा। प्रथर्ुर् प्रकरण में प्रचनर्र् िैक
ककटप्लाई इण्डथरीि सल० के द्िारा िारी ककया
र्या है। अर्ः ऐसी पररस्थिनर् में िारा १४१
एन०आई०एक्ट के प्रावििान के अनुसार कम्पनी
मैससा ककटप्लाई इण्डथरीि सल० सदहर् उसे
िारी करने िाले व्यस्क्र् ि कम्पनी के कक्रया
कलापों के उत्तरदायी व्यस्क्र्यों का वििारण
प्रथर्ुर् प्रकरण के द्िारा होना िादहये, परन्द्र्ु
प्रथर्ुर् प्रकरण में मैससा ककटप्लाई इण्डथरीि
सल० को पररिादी ने असभयुक्र् नहीिं बनाया। इस
थर्र पर यह थपष्ट करना उचिर् होर्ा कक
न्द्यायालय में ककसी भी अपराि का वििारण
पुसलस द्िारा वििेिना उपरान्द्र् दाखखल आरोप
पत्र के आिार पर न्द्यायालय द्िारा सिंज्ञान
लेकर या थियिं न्द्यायालय द्िारा पररिाद में
सिंज्ञान लेने के उपरान्द्र् िािंि के पचिार् ककया
िार्ा है र्िा दोनो ही पररस्थिनर्यों में
न्द्यायालय या पुसलस/वििेिनाचिकारी के ऊपर
यह दानयत्क्ि है कक िह िािंि/वििेिना के दौरान
प्रिम दृष्टया सभी दोषी व्यस्क्र्यों को चिस्न्द्हर्
कर उनके विरूद्ि वििारण प्रारम्भ करें। इसके
सलये यह िरूरी नहीिं है, स्िन व्यस्क्र्यों के
विरूद्ि वििारण ककया िाना है, उन सभी का
नाम पररिाद या प्रिम सूिना ररपोटा में अिंककर्
हो।" िो कक विचिसिंर्र् ि न्द्यायोचिर् है। िूिंकक
यहद तहरीर या पररिाद में ककसी अलभयुक्त का
िाम ललखे िािे से रह िाये तो विधि इतिी
प्रभािहीि िहीिं कक उक्त अलभयुक्त को उसके
किया कलापों के ललये तलब/िािंि कर वििारर्
ि कर सके। आिश्यक यह है कक मुख्य दोवियों
को धिजन्हत ककया िाये तथा ितगमाि मामले में
माििीय सिोच्ि न्यायालय द्िारा अिीता हाडा
आहद बिाम र्ौड फादसग रैिलसग एण्ड टूरल्स
प्रा० लल० २०१२(७७)ए०सी०सी० पृष्ठ १२४ में
प्रनतपाहदत सम्मािीय विधि व्यिस्था के प्रकाश
में कम्पिी के उिरदानयत्ि का नििागरर् ककया
िािा परािम्य ललखखत अधिनियम की िारा
१४४ के तहत आिश्यक है। ऐसे में विद्िाि
अिर न्यायालय के प्रश्िर्त आदेश में ककसी भी
प्रकार की कोई विधिक, ताजत्िक ि क्षेत्राधिकार
सम्बन्िी त्रुहट प्रतीत िहीिं होती है तथा प्रश्िर्त
आदेश में ककसी प्रकार के हस्तक्षेप की
आिश्यकता िहीिं है। अर्ः यह िौिदारी
ननर्रानी ननरथर् होने योग्य है।
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
आदेश

प्रथर्ुर् िैिदारी ननर्रानी ननरथर् की
िार्ी है। ननणाय की प्रनर् सदहर् अिीनथि
न्द्यायालय की पत्रािली सम्बस्न्द्िर् न्द्यायालय को
अविलम्ब भेिी िाये।"

4. Above referred both orders are
impugned in first application and similar
impugned
orders
are
challenged
in
respective applications.

5. Undisputed facts

(i) All cheques in question were
issued
by
authorised
signatories
of
applicant-company, M/s Kitply Industries
Ltd. in favour of complainant towards
commercial transactions between parties.

(ii) All cheques in question were
got dishonoured on ground of "insufficient
balance".

(iii) Statuary notice was issued to
applicants No. 2 to 5 but not to the
Company,
the
principal
offender.
A
complaint was filed only against applicants
No. 2 to 5 under Sections 138, 141, 142 of
NI Act disclosing that all proposed accused
worked for the Company.

(iv) The applicants No. 2 to 5
were summoned but it was challenged and
Revisional Court remanded the matter for
fresh consideration in view of judgment
passed by Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada
(supra). This order was not challenged at
behest of either party.

(v) At this stage an application
for impleadment of Company was filed to
which objections were also filed. Though
there was no specific order passed on it,
however, it was taken note in impugned
summoning order as well as objection to it
was also taken note of.

(vi) On remand for fresh order all
applicants including the Company were
also summoned and challenge to it before
the
Revisional
Court
remained
unsuccessful.

6.

Submission
on
behalf
of
Applicants

(i) The complaint as filed by
complainant under N.I. Act was not
maintainable for non-joinder of necessary
party i.e. the Company, being principal
offender as contemplated in Aneeta Hada
(supra).

(ii) The application filed at this
stage of remand to implead the Company
was not maintainable as well as the
application was neither considered nor
allowed nor rejected.

(iii) On remand, the summoning
order was passed taking an analogy of State
case, whereas present is a proceedings
arising out of complaint case. The Trial
Court has committed a legal error by
summoning the Company as well as other
applicants. The said legal error was not
cured by the Revisional Court as such it
was perpetuated further.

(iv) The Revisional Court vide it's
order dated 18.06.2013 has remanded the
matter which was patently illegal and
should have quashed the proceedings in
view of fact that Supreme Court only
declares the law and the maxim ignorantia
juris non excusat, a settled principle of law
and therefore it could not be said that Trial
Court was not aware of law pronounced by
Supreme Court.

(v)
Drawing
analogy
from
provisions of Cr.P.C. for summoning
accused is patently illegal in view of fact
that NI Act is a complete code in itself and
therefore provisions of Cr.P.C. are not
applicable as has been held by Supreme
7 All. M/s Kitply Industries & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
439
Court, in N. Harihara Krishnan Vs. J
Thomas, 2018 (13) SCC 663.

(vi) The impleadment application
was not accompanied by any delay
condonation application and since the
complaint was filed on 20.06.2012, while
impleadment application was filed on
16.01.2015,
i.e.
after
a
delay
of
approximately 2 1⁄2 years, the same could
not have been allowed since the same was
much beyond mandatory timelines given
under Section 138 of N.I Act. Reference
was made to a judgement of Supreme Court
in Himanshu vs B. Shivamurthy and
another, 2019 (3) SCC 797.

(vii) A bare perusal of complaint
would also demonstrate that no specific
role was assigned to accused and therefore
in view of law declared by Supreme Court,
the applicants could not have been
summoned. Reference was made to the
judgements passed by Supreme Court in
Sunita Palita vs M/S. Panchami Stone
Quarry:(2022)10 SCC 152, Siby Thomas
Vs. M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd:(2024)1
SCC 348 and Dilip Hiraramani vs Bank
Of Baroda: (2019)3 SCC 797.

(viii) It was further submitted that
without arraying Company as an accused
on whose behalf cheques were issued,
complaint would not be maintainable,
reference was made to a three Judges
judgement of Supreme Court in Aneeta
Hada (supra), which has consistently been
followed till date. Reference was also made
to
Dilip
Hiraramani
(supra)
and
Himanshu (supra).

7. Submissions on behalf of
Opposite Party No. 2/Complainant

(i) It is a specific case of
Complainant that all applicants even
worked at accused Company at relevant
time and were equally responsible for
dishonoured cheques.

(ii) A Legal lacuna for not
impleading
Company
was
cured
as
admittedly an application for impleadment
was filed after matter was remanded for
fresh order subsequent to Aneeta Hada
(supra). Objection to it was also filed.

(iii) The Trial Court as well as
Revisional Court has considered factum of
impleadment application as such formal
order on application was not required
(application was neither allowed nor
rejected).

(iv) The proposition of law that
unless the company is made accused, its
Directors/Officers cannot be prosecuted is
premised on the concept of law that unless
the finding of guilt is recorded against the
company its Directors/Officers cannot be
punished vicariously but this proposition of
law has an exception that where there is a
legal bar for proceeding against the
company due to operation of certain other
laws, or that the company is legally disable
from being prosecuted then in such case the
director or the officers of the company can
be prosecuted independently without the
company being impleaded as accused (ref:
Ajay Kumar Radheshyam Goenka Vs
Tourism Finance Corpn. of India Ltd,
(2023) 10 SCC 545). So where from their
own pleadings in the instant application,
the applicants had stated about the
company being under the process of IBC,
no prejudice is likely to be caused to
Directors/Officers especially those who
have signed the cheques (Applicant Nos. 3
& 4) if they are prosecuted because they
can independently establish their defense in
trial in terms of Section141 (2) NI Act.

(v) The accused-applicants were
first summoned vide order dated 21.9.2012
passed by the Magistrate. They had
challenged it on all these grounds before
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lower Revisional Court, which vide its
order
dated
18.06.2013
had
then
remanded the case to Magistrate for
passing fresh order of summoning and no
further challenge was made by them to
such revisional order before this Court. It
is thereafter that during proceedings
before the Magistrate that Complainant
had sought amendment in complaint
seeking impleadment of Company as
accused, which stands allowed impliedly
when Magistrate vide his fresh order of
summoning had summoned Company
also on premise that cognizance is taken
of offence and there is no legal bar in
then summoning those who appears to be
the offenders even if they were not
arrayed in the title of complaint by
complainant.
Recourse
to
such
amendments in complaint, which causes
no prejudice to accused is legally
permissible and which position of law has
been exhaustively dealt with by this
Court in the case of M/s Narender
Kumar @ Brothers vs State of UP &
others, 2022:AHC:211261, which is
relied upon by complainant in toto.

(vi) The Director or officer of the
Company who had signed the cheque can
be
prosecuted
without
making
any
averment in the complaint to effect that
they were in charge of, or responsible to
Company for conduct of its business hence
impugned complaint qua Applicant Nos. 3
& 4 survives since they were the joint
signatories of the cheque. (Ref. Sunita
Palita vs Panchami Stone Quarry, (2022)
10 SCC 152)

8. Heard learned counsel for rival
parties, perused the record as well as
written submissions filed by both parties.

9. Discussion and Conclusion

(i) In above referred undisputed
facts, now the applicants have no legal
right to challenge the order whereby
Revisional Court has remanded the case for
fresh consideration in view of Aneeta
Hada (supra). There was no legal
requirement
that
applicants
(proposed
accused) be heard at the stage of
summoning even though matter was
remanded to Trial Court for this purpose.
The objections filed by applicants to
impleadment application was not required
to be taken note of.

(ii)
The
first
issue
for
consideration is whether on remand the
Trial Court has to pass an order only in
view of Aneeta Hada (supra) without
consideration of impleadment application
or not. If the answer would be affirmative
then in strict view of Aneeta Hada
(supra), since principal offender i.e.
Company was not arrayed as an accused
therefore, no criminal proceeding could be
initiated under NI Act against applicants
No. 2 to 5. However, if the answer would
be negative then, the Court will consider
whether application for impleadment was
considered and allowed or contents of
impugned order do indicate that it was
allowed as well as whether pleadings are to
the effect that Company and applicants
have committed prima-facie offence under
NI Act.

(iii) The Revisonal Court while
remitting the case has neither put any
caveat nor restricted the Trial Court to
consider
impleadment
application
in
accordance with law, if so filed. It is
important to note here that none of
applicants have challenged the order passed
by Revisional Court whereby matter was
remitted for fresh consideration.

(iv) In regard to amendment in a
complaint,
few
paragraphs
of
M/s
Narender Kumar @ Brothers (supra), a
7 All. M/s Kitply Industries & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
441
judgement passed by this Court and relied
upon by complainant would be relevant
where this issue was considered in detail:-

"9. The first issue before this
Court
is
whether
amendment
in
a
complaint was legally permissible?

10. In this regard rival parties
have placed reliance on S.R.Sukumar
(Supra).

11. Learned counsel for the
applicants has submitted that amendment
which could cause prejudice to accused,
such
cannot
be
allowed.
Contrary,
according to counsel for complainant no
prejudice was caused.

12.
Before
considering
rival
submissions, relevant paragraphs no.18
and 19 of S.R.Sukumar (supra) would be
relevant to mention hereinafter:

"18. Insofar as merits of the
contention
regarding
allowing
of
amendment application, it is true that there
is no specific provision in the Code to
amend either a complaint or a petition filed
under the provisions of the Code, but the
Courts have held that the petitions seeking
such
amendment
to
correct
curable
infirmities can be allowed even in respect
of complaints. In U.P. Pollution Control
Board vs. Modi Distillery And Ors., (1987)
3 SCC 684, wherein the name of the
company was wrongly mentioned in the
complaint
that
is,
instead
of
Modi
Industries Ltd. the name of the company
was mentioned as Modi Distillery and the
name was sought to be amended. In such
factual background, this Court has held as
follows:-

"...The learned Single Judge has
focussed his attention only on the technical
flaw in the complaint and has failed to
comprehend that the flaw had occurred due
to the recalcitrant attitude of Modi
Distillery and furthermore the infirmity is
one which could be easily removed by
having the matter remitted to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate with a direction to call
upon the appellant to make the formal
amendments to the averments contained in
para 2 of the complaint so as to make the
controlling company of the industrial unit
figure as the concerned accused in the
complaint. All that has to be done is the
making of a formal application for
amendment by the appellant for leave to
amend by substituting the name of Modi
Industries Limited, the company owning the
industrial
unit,
in
place
of
Modi
Distillery....
Furthermore,
the
legal
infirmity is of such a nature which could be
easily cured..."

19. What is discernible from the
U.P. Pollution Control Board's case is that
easily curable legal infirmity could be
cured by means of a formal application for
amendment. If the amendment sought to be
made relates to a simple infirmity which is
curable by means of a formal amendment
and by allowing such amendment, no
prejudice could be caused to the other side,
notwithstanding the fact that there is no
enabling provision in the Code for
entertaining such amendment, the Court
may permit such an amendment to be
made. On the contrary, if the amendment
sought to be made in the complaint does
not relate either to a curable infirmity or
the same cannot be corrected by a formal
amendment or if there is likelihood of
prejudice to the other side, then the Court
shall not allow such amendment in the
complaint."

13. xxxxx

14. xxxxx

15. xxxxx

16. In S.R. Sukumar (supra),
Supreme Court has reproduced part of
U.P. Pollution Control, Board (supra)
wherein amendment of details of the
company was allowed and it was held that
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court may permit an amendment which are
formal in nature though a caveat was put
that in event of likelihood of prejudice to
the other side, such amendment may not be
allowed."

(v) To further consider the rival
submissions on issue, I have carefully
perused the complaint where it was
specifically stated that opposite party (the
Company) has issued cheques in pursuance
of commercial transactions, which got
dishonoured and named accused were
employees of the Company and were
equally responsible for dishonour, as such
prima-facie
allegations
against
the
Company, being principal offender, was
part of proceeding since inception and are
sufficient to summon the Company also
being principal offender as well as other
applicants including signatories to the
cheques.
The
Trial
Court
has
not
committed any legal error by considering
an application for impleadment.

(vi) Now the Court has to
consider effect of a fact that application for
impleadment was neither allowed nor
rejected, though from the contents of
impugned
order,
Trial
Court
was
apparently considering the said application
only as it would be evident from first Para
of impugned order and for reference said
paragraph is again reproduced hereinafter:-

"उल्लेखनीय है कक सम्बस्न्द्िर्
कम्पनी को पररिादी ने पक्षकार नहीिं बनाया
र्या है, स्िसके सिंदभा में पररिादी ने प्रािाना
पत्र ददनािंककर् 16-01-2015 मैससा ककट
प्लाई इण्डथरीि सल० को पक्षकार बनाये
िाने हेर्ु प्रथर्ुर् ककया र्िा उसमें किन
ककया र्या कक उसने मैससा ककट प्लाई
इण्डथरीि सल० को विचििर् रूप से नोदटस
भी दे ददया है। विपक्षी पी० के० र्ोयनका
द्िारा दाखखल आपवत्त ददनािंककर् 30-032015 के द्िारा यह कहा कक प्रथर्ुर् प्रकरण
में अब मैससा ककट प्लाई इण्डथरीि सल०
को पक्षकार बनाये िाने हेर्ु प्रािाना पत्र
थिीकार नहीिं ककया िा सकर्ा, क्योंकक िह
सिंशोिन की प्रकृनर् का है।"

(viii) As referred above, the Trial
Court
was
in
fact
considered
the
application for impleadment only but while
considering the issue, it lost track and dealt
the issue on different analogy i.e. power of
Magistrate to summon even an accused not
named in charge-sheet if so warrant,
however, a fact that present case was
arising out of a complaint case under a
Special Act was completely ignored.
Therefore, reason and analogy for allowing
impugned order has a legal error and
impugned order in its present form could
not legally survive.

(ix) The impugned order has two
errors, first impleadment application was
not finally decided and secondly, reason
assigned to summon applicants suffered
with a legal error, however, for both errors,
the complainant could not be penalized
since he has done everything to summon
applicants including the Company by way
of filing an impleadment application.

(x) The judgments relied upon by
applicants i.e. N. Harihara Krishnan
(supra);
Himanshu
(supra);
Sinuta
Palita (supra); Siby Thomas (supra) and
Dilip Hiraramani (supra) are on the point
that if Company was not convicted, their
Director would also not be convicted either,
or vicarious liability would also not fall on
non-executive Directors or on summon
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No judgment on
issue whether amendment could not be
allowed is being placed on record.
Proceedings still have not reached upto a
7 All. Vinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
443
stage, where other cited judgements would
have application.

(xi) The law in regard to
amendment in a complaint is being referred
in Narender Kumar @ Brothers (supra).
The Trial Court has adopted a wrong
approach to consider the case and in
interest of justice such approach could not
prejudice the complainant's case. In first
round Revisional Court has remitted the
case
for
fresh
consideration,
where
impleadment application was filed in view
of Aneeta Hada (supra) therefore, it was
maintainable, however, as discussed above
said application was not decided on merit.

(xii) Therefore, this Court is of
considered opinion that impugned order in
its present form does not survive.

10.