Bombay High Court
PRADEEP SAVLA AND ORSversusM/S. PREMIER CORE INDUSTRIES (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The issue process order dated 30.07.2019 is quashed and set aside as the applicants had resigned before the cheques were issued.
Summary
The petitioners, former directors of Premier Core Industries, filed several criminal applications seeking to quash an issue process order issued by a Metropolitan Magistrate for the dishonour of cheques. They contended that they had resigned from the company before the cheques were issued, a fact corroborated by Ministry of Corporate Affairs records. The trial court had ignored these resignation dates and proceeded with the criminal process. The High Court examined the resignation dates against the cheque issuance dates and held that the resignations, proven by official documents, pre‑dated the alleged offence, rendering the issue process order erroneous. Consequently, the Court quashed the issue process order and directed the trial court to expedite the trial, disposing of all the applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the resignation of the applicants from directorship before the issuance of the cheques bars criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- Whether the trial court erred in not considering the Ministry of Corporate Affairs records showing the resignation dates.
Subjects
- cheque bounce
- director resignation
- criminal liability
- issue process order
- quash
- High Court Bombay
- Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Judgment
16-APL-938-2021.doc
Rohit Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.938 OF 2021
Pradeep Savla And Ors … Applicants
Versus
M OF s. Premier Core Industries and anr. … Respondents
with
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.337 OF 2020
Pradeep Savla And Ors
Versus
M OF s. Premier Core Industries (a Partnership Firm)
with
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1199 OF 2021
Pradeep Savla And Ors
Versus
M OF s. Premier Core Industries and anr.
with
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.947 OF 2021
Pradeep Savla And Ors
Versus
M OF s. Premier Core Industries
Through Its Partner
Mrs Benny Dicta A Rasquina and anr.
with
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.949 OF 2021
Pradeep Savla And Ors
Versus
M OF s Premier Core Industries
Through Its Partner Mrs Benny Dicta A Rasquina and anr.
Page 1 of 4
16-APL-938-2021.doc
Rohit Ghuge
_________________________________________________________________
Mr.Niket Harit a/w M. Kashif Wahedna i/b Manoj Harit & Co., Advocate
for the Applicant in all matters.
Mr. Dhananjay Bhosale a/w Mithun Kaire, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
in all matters.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The issue involved in these five applications are the same.
Hence, I am deciding all these applications by this common order.
2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant’s that
the applicants ceased to be Directors of the company in the year 2018 i.e.
before issuance of the cheque. But, the learned Trial Court did not consider
this fact and passed issue process order, which is erroneous and requested
to allow the applications.
3. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 strongly objected
to allow the applications on the ground that whether the applicants
resigned from the directorship or not is part of evidence, which has to be
proved by way of evidence. The learned trial court has passed a well
reasoned order and requested to reject the applications.
4. Learned APP submits that appropriate order be passed.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused documents produced
on record.
6. It appears from record that in Complaint No. CC/259/2019, the
date of issuance of the cheque is 15.03.2019, whereas the date of
dishonour of the cheque is 16.03.2019 and Applicant No.1 had resigned on
20.09.2018, Applicant No.2 resigned on 25.06.2018, Applicant No.3
Page 2 of 4
16-APL-938-2021.doc
Rohit Ghuge
resigned on 30.05.2018, and Applicant No. 4 resigned on 09.05.2018 i.e
before issuance of the cheque. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, who is
supervisory body confirms the dates of resignation of the applicants.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL/337/2020
Sr. Date of Cheque Date of Resignation Complaint
No. No.
1 15/02/2019 & 16/02/2019 20/09/2018 (APP. No.1) CC/222/2019
(Date of Dishonour of the said 25/06/2018 (App. No.2)
Cheque) 30/05/2018 (App. No.3)
15/07/2018 (App. No.4)
Alongwith
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL/938/2021
Sr. Date of Cheque Date of Resignation Complaint
No. No.
1 15/10/2018 & 16/10/2018 20/09/2018 (APP. No.1) CC/475/2018
(Date of Dishonour of the said 25/06/2018 (App. No.2)
Cheque) 30/05/2018 (App. No.3)
15/07/2018 (App. No.4)
Alongwith
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL/947/2021
Sr. Date of Cheque Date of Resignation Complaint
No. No.
1 15/11/2018 & 17/11/2018 20/09/2018 (APP. No.1) CC/31/2019
(Date of Dishonour of the said 25/06/2018 (App. No.2)
Cheque) 30/05/2018 (App. No.3)
15/07/2018 (App. No.4)
Alongwith
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL/949/2021
Sr. Date of Cheque Date of Resignation Complaint
No. No.
1 15/12/2018 & 17/12/2018 20/09/2018 (APP. No.1) CC/73/2019
(Date of Dishonour of the said 25/06/2018 (App. No.2)
Page 3 of 4
16-APL-938-2021.doc
Rohit Ghuge
Cheque) 30/05/2018 (App. No.3)
15/07/2018 (App. No.4)
Alongwith
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL/1199/2021
FOR QUASHING OF ISSUE PROCESS
Sr. Date of Cheque Date of Resignation Complaint
No. No.
1 15/03/2019 & 15/03/2019 20/09/2018 (APP. No.1) CC/259/2019
(Date of Dishonour of the said 25/06/2018 (App. No.2)
Cheque) 30/05/2018 (App. No.3)
15/07/2018 (App. No.4)
The documents of Ministry of Corporate Affairs shows that the
applicants have resigned from the said company before the date of
issuance of the cheque, but this fact is not considered by this learned
Magistrate before passing issue process order.
7. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) All Applications are allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The issue process order’s dated 30.07.2019 passed by
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund,
Mumbai against all applicants are quashed and set aside.
(iii) Considering the submissions of both learned counsel, the
trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…