M.M.S. Bedi, J.@mdashIt has been reported that the notice issued to the respondent has been received back after service. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. The petitioners seek the quashing of criminal Complaint under Section 138 & 42 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ''the Act''), filed by complainant alleging that the cheque for a sum of Rs.2,50,000 issued by M/s Ria Constructions Limited, under the signatures of Director, Sanjeev Azad was not honoured despite issuance of notice under Section 138 of the Act.
3. So far as petitioners are concerned, they are ladies and have been impleaded as accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, being Directors of M/s Ria Constructions Limited, Panchkula. A perusal of the summoning order does not indicate that the petitioners in the capacity as Directors had been Incharge of the Company or were responsible for the conduct of the business of their Company. They are also not admittedly signatories of the cheque. Respondentcomplainant seems to have unnecessarily impleaded the petitioner as accused to harass all the Directors.
4. A perusal of para 9 of the complaint indicates that it has vaguely been pleaded that all the accused being directors are Incharge of accused No. 1 Company and they have been actively involved in the business of the accused company and are responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. It has repeatedly been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that to launch prosecution against the Directors, there must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction. There should be clear and unambiguous allegations as to how the Directors are the Incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Every person who is a Director or employee, of a company is not liable but only such persons coijld be held liable if at the time, when the offence is committed, he was Incharge and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. In this context reference can be made to N. V. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh and others, 2007(2) RCR (Crl.), 266, The respondent has not even come forward to contest the claim of the petitioners. The criminal complainant and all the consequential proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 138/142 read with Section 141 of the Act, are required to be quashed. However, the proceedings against other accused may continue, in accordance with law.
Disposed of.
