The Allahabad High Court has remitted a batch of cheque bounce cases back to the trial court for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to properly decide on impleading the accused company as a party. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing several applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by M/S Kitply Industries Ltd. and its officials.
Background:
The case stems from commercial transactions between M/S Kitply Industries Ltd. and the complainant, where multiple cheques issued by the company were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against company officials but did not initially include the company itself as an accused.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether the complaint was maintainable without arraying the company as an accused
2. Validity of the subsequent impleadment application to add the company as a party
3. Proper procedure for considering amendment/impleadment in complaint cases under special acts
Court’s Decision:
The court set aside the summoning orders passed by the trial court and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration of the impleadment application. Justice Shamshery observed:
“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.”
The court directed the trial court to decide the impleadment application within two months after hearing only the complainant, noting that the accused are not required to be heard at this stage.
Important Observations:
1. On the initial omission of the company: “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.”
2. On the need for proper consideration of amendment: “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.”
3. On remitting the matter: “This Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order in its present form does not survive.”
Also Read
Parties and Counsel:
– Applicants: M/S Kitply Industries Ltd. and 4 others
– Opposite Parties: State of U.P. and Another
– Counsel for Applicants: Anupam Laloriya
– Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A., Sushil Shukla
Case Numbers: Multiple applications under Section 482 CrPC, including Application No. 617 of 2020
