Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 30 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Dillip Kumar Patel, Managing Director of Isar Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
  • Opposite Party: Rudra Narayan Pradhan, proprietor of Rudra Motors, Manamunda.
  • Proceeding Quashed: Criminal ICC No. 05 of 2018 initiated by the opposite party under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
  • Petition Filed: Under inherent jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRLMC No. 993 of 2024, CNR No. ODHC010220192024).
  • Hearing Date: 14 July 2026; Judgment Date: 30 July 2026.
  • Key Allegations: The complainant alleges that a cheque of Rs 10,00,000/- issued by Isar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (signed by its authorized signatory) was dishonoured. The cheque was presented on 19‑12‑2017; the bank returned it on 20‑12‑2017 citing a “stop payment” instruction.
  • Statutory Notice: A notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act was issued to the petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director, addressed to the company’s address (Rangadipa, Sundargarh). The company itself was not impleaded as an accused in the complaint.
  • Counsel Submissions:
  • Petitioner’s Counsel (Amit Prasad Bose): Argues that the notice was not served on the company and that the complaint fails to establish an offence against the petitioner personally.
  • Opposite Party’s Counsel (D.P. Dhal): Relies on Karnataka High Court judgment (Shaik Nowhera v. Help Technology) asserting that a notice to the MD suffices as notice to the company and that the omission of the company as a separate accused is a curable defect.
  • Judicial Reasoning:

1. The cheque was indeed issued by Isar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and signed by an authorized signatory.

2. While the notice was addressed to the MD at the company’s address, the complaint did not implead the company as a party.

3. The Court examined precedents: Lalit Bariwala v. State of Orissa (2013), Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels (2012), Karnataka High Court’s Shaik Nowhera (2025), and Supreme Court’s Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025). The latter affirmed that a company must be a necessary party when the cheque is issued by the company.

4. Because the company was never impleaded, the defect is not curable; the complainant cannot retrospectively add the company without prejudice to the petitioner.

5. The Court emphasized that procedural hyper‑technicalities should not be allowed to defeat the object of the NI Act, but in this case the absence of the company as an accused precludes any remedial cure.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed the CRLMC petition, quashing the criminal proceedings in Crl. ICC No. 05 of 2018.
  • All pending actions against the petitioner in the Sonepur court are dismissed.

Topics: Court Order, Negotiable Instruments Act, Criminal Procedure