1 2025:CGHC:643 NAFR H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1234 of 2021 1 - KBE Rao S/o Late Koda Appanna Aged About 43 Years Director Of M/s Maa Harsiddhi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd, R/o Bunglow No. 83, Peepal Type - I, (C.G.) Housing Board Colony, Boriyakala, Near Saddani Darbar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - P.G. Roy S/o Late S. N. Guha Ray Aged About 59 Years (Ceo) Effective Enter Prizes Pvt Ltd R/o Effective Prizes Tvt Ltd, Bhilai Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kulesh Sahu, Advocate ________ ___________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the very initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act, 1881”) against the petitioner showing him as a Director of a Company, without impleading the Company and making the petitioner liable for alleged liability of the company for prosecution, in 2 Case No. 37675/2018, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in Aneeta Hada V. Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661, the principle in this regard has been well settled by the three Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the same has been reiterated in the matter of Himanshu Vs. B. Shivamurthy and another, (2019) 3 SCC 797, in which, it has been held that without impleading a Company as a party for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, a complaint against the Director of the Company is not maintainable. Hence, learned counsel seeks a direction to the concerned Court to decide his objection within a stipulated period. 4. In Himanshu (supra), the law relating to Offence by companies has been clarified. There relevant paras 12 & 13 reads thus 12. The provisions of Section 141 postulate that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. 3 13. In the absence of the company being arraigned as an, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused.” 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as also considering the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is directed to raise objection before the concerned trial Court and the trial Court is directed to consider the objection of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The concerned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti