Allahabad High Court

RAJESH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 January 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The order dated 29 June 2022 allowing the son to be impleaded and refusing abatement is upheld.

Summary

The applicant, Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of the deceased director of Mahindra Machines Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash an order dated 29 June 2022 that had allowed the complainant to implead him as the new director in a cheque‑dishonour complaint. The complainant had filed the original complaint against the company for a dishonoured cheque of Rs.27.12 lakh. The trial court had rejected the applicant’s request to abate the proceedings on the ground of the director’s death and instead permitted the complainant’s objection that the son, now a director, be impleaded. The applicant argued that the company, being a juristic person, could not be declared dead and that the order should be set aside. The High Court, relying on precedents that a juristic person continues despite change in its officers, held that the order was proper, noting the passage of three years and the proximity of the trial to conclusion, and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the death of the original director warrants abatement of the criminal complaint.
Whether the son, now a director, can be impleaded as a party in place of the deceased director.
Whether the order passed by the Presiding Officer on 29 June 2022 can be quashed under Section 528 of the CrPC.
Whether the delay of three years in filing the application bars its consideration.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
abate proceedings
death of director
juristic person
impleadment
cheque dishonour
company law
delay in filing

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19396 of 2025

Rajesh Kumar Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhinav Tripathi, Raksha Chauhan,
Upendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 73
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A for the State as
also perused the record.

2. Notices were issued to opposite party no. 2 but no one appeared. As per
C.J.M. report dated 12.01.2026, notice issued to opposite party no. 2 but he
is not residing on the present address nor office run on the said address.

3. Instant application has been filed to quash the order dated 29.06.2022
passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court-II, Kanpur, U.P. as well as
entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.4834 of 2015 (M/s N.K. Organic
Inorganic Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Mahindra Machines Manufacturer
Pvt. Ltd.), pending before the Presiding Officer, Additional Court-II,
Kanpur, U.P.

4. The complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 M/s N.K. Organic
Inorganic Industries Pvt. Ltd. through authorized Director G.P. Mathur
against M/s Mahindra Machines Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd through Managing
Director Prabhaker Singh, for dishonour of the Cheque bearing No.064410
dated 03.11.2010 amounting to Rs.27,12,000/-. Counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant is son of earlier director of the company
M/s Mahindra Machines Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. During pendency of present
case before the trial court, the director Prabhakar Singh died then the
applicant company moved application before the trial court that since the
Director of the company is no more, the present case be abated. The opposite
NA528 No. 19396 of 2025
2

party no. 2/complainant filed objection stating that son of Director Prabhakar
Singh has taken place and he has been declared director of M/s Mahindra
Machines Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd, therefore, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh son of
late Prabhakar Singh be impleaded as party in place of Prabhakar Singh,
Director of the company. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the
parties, allowed the application of opposite party no.2 on 29.06.2022 and
rejected the application of the applicant which was filed with a prayer that
the proceedings be abated as Director of M/s Mahindra Machines
Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd is no more.

5. From the record and documents available on record, it is apparent that the
applicant, who is son of the earlier Director, has now taken over the charge
of the company and is working as director of M/s Mahindra Machines
Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. As per Apex Court's judgement in Aneeta Hada Vs.
Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 and
Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs. Fine Tubes reported in (2007) 5 SCC 103,
the company is juristic person and in the eye of law the juristic person
cannot be declared dead and in place of Director or other responsible person,
some other persons shall take place. It is apparent that the applicant, who is
son of earlier director has taken responsibility of the company and appointed
as director, and therefore, he has been impleaded as party in the present case.
The judgement and order passed by the learned court dated 29.06.2022 is
just and proper and it does not require any interference. From the record it is
also apparent that order challenged herein was passed in the year, 2022 and
after three years, applicant has challenged the order. Moreover, it is also
apparent from the order sheet that the trial proceeding is on the verge of the
conclusion, therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted.

6. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Deepak Verma,J.)
January 28, 2026
Meenu Singh

Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…