Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mohan Lal Sharma S/O Shri Shriram Sharma vs Ramkaran Potar S/O Shri Madholal Potar, on 14 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7078/2021
URN: CRLMP / 13084U / 2021
Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Shriram Sharma, Aged About 74
Years, Ex-Principal St. Soldier Senior Secondary School, Nainwa,
R/o Ward No. 3, Rajghat, Nainwa, District Bundi, At Present Resi-
dent Of Bhagwati Chouk, Govindgarh, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ramkaran Potar S/o Shri Madholal Potar, R/o Rajghat
Nainwa, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
2. St. Soldier Senior Secondary School, Through Its Principal
Smt. Priyanka Sharma W/o Shri Deepak Sharma, Ward
No. 15, Nainwa, District Bundi.
3. Rajveer Sualika, Director St. Soldier Senior Secondary
School, Nainwa, Bundi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora with
Mr. Tara Chand Sharma and
Mr. Himanshu Agarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma
Mr. Harshit Parashar for
Mr. Anupam Sharma
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
14/07/2026
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred
challenging the validity of the order dated 07.11.2017 passed by
the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa,
District Bundi in complaint case No.950/2017, by which
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:00:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 07:41:30 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLMP-7078/2021]
cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
posted as the Principal in St. Soldier Senior Secondary School at
Nainwa, District Bundi and while in service, he issued a cheque in
favour of the complainant, but he resigned from the said post on
24.03.2017. Counsel submits that the aforesaid cheque dated
17.06.2017 was given as security and the same was misused by
the complainant by presenting it before the bank on 19.06.2017.
The said cheque was dishonoured with remarks ‘funds insufficient’.
Counsel submits that it was admitted by the complainant also in
the complaint itself that the petitioner resigned from the post of
the Principal before the complaint was filed. Counsel submits that
no cognizance has been taken against the Director or other
officials responsible for the affairs of the School and cognizance
has been taken only against the petitioner, who has no concern
whatsoever with the affairs of the School after his resignation
from the post of Principal of the School. Counsel further submits
that the petitioner has no vicarious liability, rather the liability lies
upon the School, if at all any amount was borrowed by the School
from the complainant.
3. In support of his submissions, counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.
reported in 2012 (5) SCC 661 and upon the judgment passed by
the Madras High Court in the case of K. Sundari vs. C.A.R.P.
Mari while deciding Crl. O.P. (MD) Nos.1293/2021 vide order
dated 27.11.2024.
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:00:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 07:41:30 PM)
(3 of 6) [CRLMP-7078/2021]
4. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the
impugned proceedings amounts to abuse of due process of law
and the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that the cheque in
question was signed by the petitioner and when the same was
presented before the Bank by the complainant, it got dishonored
with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’, hence, under these
circumstances, the petitioner has committed an offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the cognizance
has rightly been taken against him, hence, interference of this
Court is not warranted.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material available on the record.
7. Perusal of the record indicates that a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was submitted by
the complainant against the petitioner as well as against the
school i.e., St. Soldier Senior Secondary School through the
Principal Priyanka Sharma and against the Director of the said
School Mr. Rajveer Sualika. This fact has been admitted in the
complaint by the complainant that the petitioner had resigned
from the post of Principal of School, however, in the capacity of
being the Ex-Principal of the School, he has been
impleaded/arrayed as an accused in the cause title of the
complaint. The documents available on the record indicate that
the petitioner has already resigned from the post of the Principal
on 24.03.2017, while the said cheque bears the date of
17.06.2017. Thus, it is emphatically clear that the petitioner was
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:00:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 07:41:30 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLMP-7078/2021]
not discharging his duties as the Principal of the said School, at
the relevant time and date when the cheque was presented before
the Bank by the complainant which was ultimately dishonoured.
8. It is quite shocking and surprising that no cognizance has
been taken against the management of the School or Director of
the School rather cognizance has been taken only against the
petitioner, who has already resigned from the post of Principal of
the said School.
9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases has held that
once the signatory of the cheque has resigned, he is not at all
responsible for the affairs of the company/organization.
In Adhiraj Singh vs. Yograj Singh and Ors. reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 5558, it has been held in para 7 as under:
“7. Having considered the submission made by learned
counsel for the parties, we find that in the present case
on the date of issuance of the cheques, the appellant
had already resigned. The fact regarding resignation is
not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the cheques
issued by the Company were signed by another compe-
tent person on behalf of the Company. Once the facts
are plain and clear that when the cheques were issued
by the Company, the appellant had already resigned
and was not a director in the Company and was not
connected with the company, he cannot be held respon-
sible for the affairs of the Company in view of the provi-
sions as contained in Section 141 of the NI Act.”
In the case Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promo-
tion Council and Ors. reported in 2012 (1) SCC 520, it has
been held in para 16 as under:
“16.Inasmuch as the certified copy of the annual return
dated 30.09.1999 is a public document, more particu-
larly, in view of the provisions of the Companies Act,(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:00:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 07:41:30 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLMP-7078/2021]1956 read with Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence
Ac,t 1872, we hold that the Appellant has validly re-
signed from the Directorship of the Company even in
the year 1998 and she cannot be held responsible for
the dishonor of the cheques issued in the year 2004.”
10. Even the Madras High Court in the case of K. Sundari
(supra) has taken a view that the criminal trial would not proceed
against the authorized signatory of the cheuqe, who has resigned
from the post when the complaint was filed.
11. Criminal prosecution of any person is a serious matter as it
affects the liberty of that person. No greater damage can be done
to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case.
In the instant case, the petitioner has resigned from the post
of the Principal on 24.03.2017 and the cheque in question bears
the signatures of the petitioner, alleged to be issued after the date
of his resignation. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for
the affairs of the School, after his resignation. It is worthy to
mention that his relationship of employee with the employer-
School has come to an end after his resignation.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is neither
liable nor responsible for the cheque in question issued if any,
under his signatures, after his resignation from the post of
Principal of the School.
13. On this count alone, the order impugned is not sustainable
and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside.
14. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands
allowed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:00:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 07:41:30 PM)
(6 of 6) [CRLMP-7078/2021]
15. It goes without saying that the complainant would be at
liberty to proceed against the real culprits, who are responsible for
the offence.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
KuD/54
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:00:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 07:41:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
