Wed. Apr 21st, 2021

Samridh Sharma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 25 May, 2017

1 min read

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the
respondent No.2 is a sleeping director and has nothing to do with the
issuance of the cheques in question. The petitioner is not the Managing

Crl.M.C. 2480/2016 Page 1 of 3
Director as claimed in response to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. No
proceedings can be initiated under Section 138 N.I.Act against him.
3. Record reveals that in the Complaint Case No.762/2013
instituted under Section 138 N.I.Act, the petitioner among others was
summoned by an order dated 13.12.2013. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
dated 13.01.2015 has been served upon the petitioner. It is informed that the
complainant has examined himself as CW-2 in the proceedings and at
present the matter is fixed for recording defence evidence.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply