[2025:RJ-JP:2729] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1302/2018 Chetan Choudhary, Director, M/s H.M. Pipes Private Limited, A- 59, Suraj Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Pp. 2. M/s K.k. Polymers Proprietor M/s Advent Age Agencies Private Limited Through Director Sanjay Mitta, R/o 424- 425, 4Th Floor, Ganpati Plaza, M.I. Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Saurashi Agarwal Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta Mr. Heramb Saraswat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Rahul Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.8 Jaipur Metropolitan by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner has been rejected being barred by limitation. 2. The aforesaid revision petition was submitted by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24.08.2013 passed by the Special Magistrate (NI Act cases) No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [2025:RJ-JP:2729] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1302/2018] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a vague complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was submitted by the complainant-respondents against M/s H.M. Pipes Private Ltd. along with other four co-accused persons with vague averments and without any specific allegations. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not the signatory of the cheque and no fact has been disclosed in the complaint that as to in what manner he was responsible for the state of affairs of the company. Counsel submits that in absence of the specific averments in the complaint, the same is not maintainable. 4. Counsel submits that while passing the order of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has mentioned in the impugned order that cognizance is taken against the co-accused persons mentioned in the cause title of the complaint. Counsel submits that there is no application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate while passing the order impugned. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his contentions counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vora & Anr. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 48 and Ravi Dhingra vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 13251 of 2023. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner being Director of M/s. H.M. Pipes Private Ltd. is liable and responsible for the state of affairs of the company and that is why he was arrayed as an accused in the cause title of the [2025:RJ-JP:2729] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1302/2018] complaint. Counsel submits that at the stage of taking cognizance, the averments of the complaint are required to be seen. This fact is also required to be seen as to whether he was responsible for the affairs of the company or not. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the order impugned dated 24.08.2013 passed by the Special Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan indicates that cognizance has been taken against the accused persons mentioned in the cause title of the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. It appears that before passing of the aforesaid cognizance order, the learned Magistrate has not applied its mind and a stereo-type order has been passed without application of mind. It is true that at the stage of taking cognizance, the averments made in the complaint are required to be seen but there is no single assertion with regard to the allegations, as alleged in the averments made in the complaint more particularly, the allegations made against the accused persons while passing the impugned order, hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to pass fresh order, after taking into count, The Judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in [2025:RJ-JP:2729] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1302/2018] the case of K.K. Ahuja (supra), Ravi Dhingra (supra) & Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan (supra). 9. It is expected from the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of one month. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/548