news details |
|
|
| Bounce Cheque case against Shekhar Suman Film/TV Actor | | HC quashed proceedings initiated by the court below | |
Jammu, October, 10:- Justice YP Nargotra of J&K High Court Jammu wing today quashed the proceedings initiated by Court below against Shekhar Suman a Film/TV personality and allowed all the nine petitions filed by Shekhar Suman seeking quahsment of proceedings in the court below.
Special Excise Mobile Magistrate Jammu has taken cognizance on the complaints filed by M/S Shiv Shanker and others Mrs. Krishna Suri & Others and process has been issued against Shekhar Suman and others. The accused company Growell Multi Trade India Ltd issued cheques in favour of complainant, the complainant producing the cheques; the same were dishonoured and returned with memo that funds were in-sufficient in the account. The cheques have been issued and signed on the behalf of the company by the accused Director and of Growell Multi Trade India Ltd and not by the accused petitioner, the complaints have been filed by the complainant for prosecuting petitioner Shekhar Suman for commission u/s 138r/w 141 of Negotiable instrument act.
Justice YP Nargotra after hearing Advocate B S Salathia along with other Advocates appearing in the nine filed by the Shekhar Suman and Advocate KS Johal appearing for the respondents and also referred various judgments of the Supreme Court observed that in the complaint it is specially alleged by the complainants that accused/ petitioner Shekhar Suman was In-charge and was responsible to the company for conducting its business. He has been described in the complainant only as Director, Coordinator/ Promoter of the company, which according to the counsel for the complainants/respondents is not in fact, yet assuming that Shekhar Suman holds said position, that by itself does not made him liable for the commission of the offence u/s 138 r/w 141 of the act. The contention of the counsel of the respondents that the question whether petitioner/accused is In-charge and was responsible for the business of the company at the relevant time of commission of the offences should be left to be determined by the trial court is without any merit. Such a situation would arise only where in a complaint, accused is alleged to be In-charge of and responsible to the company for conduting its business and the accused takes up a defence that he is not In-charge and responsible to the conduct of the business of the company, in that case the question would be determinable being a question of fact during trail. In the present case as the necessary averments in the complaint are lacking, the process against the accused could not have been legally issued against the petitioner.
Justice YP Nargotra further observed that Mr. Johal submits that complainants can demonstrate by a CD in which the accused petitioner Shekhar Suman has claimed that he is responsible for the business of the company. He in fact seeks this court to view it self the said CD. As the said CD before the Trial court, the same cannot under law be allowed to be introduced as evidence in the proceedings in hand. Court declined the prayer made by the counsel for the respondents. The complaints filed by the complainant/ respondents against the accused/petitioner Shekhar Suman, cannot proceed consequently, the orders by which cognizance has been taken by the court below against Shekhar Suman and the court complaints qua the petitioner are quashed. With these observations court disposed of nine petitions filed by Shekhar Suman u/s 561-A CrPC for quashing the complainst pending in the court below through Advocates BS Salathia, D S Chouhan, R S Pathania, Monish Chopra, Rakesh Dogra, Rakesh Sharma and Akshay Anand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
