KAVITA AGGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint and order dated 22nd August, 2005 issuing summons against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter NI Act) in Complaint Case No. 819/09/08 titled as M/s. Delhi Paints and Oils Traders v. M/s. Mega Lube India Ltd. The grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint regarding dishonour of the cheques was filed by respondent No. 2 against M/s. Mega Lube India Ltd. along with nine other persons wherein the petitioner was named as accused No. 8. It is contended that neither any legal notice was issued nor served on the petitioner. Even in the legal notice issued there was no mention of the petitioner's name. As per the complainant there is no allegation set out in the complaint qua the petitioner. As a matter of fact in the complaint blanks have been left after the accused numbers and the petitioner has been assigned no role. Further even in the statement of the complainant recorded there is no allegation as to how the petitioner was responsible and in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company. It is contended that in the absence of the requisite ingredients of Sections 138 read with Section 141, NI Act being complied with no summons could have been issued against the petitioner. The order of the learned Judge suffers from gross illegality and warrants interference of this Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 on the other hand contends that the petitioner has been named as one of the accused in the memo of parties of the complaint and being the Director of the company, the petitioner was liable for the offence committed by the company. He further states that the challenge to the impugned order is highly belated. The summons were issued on 22nd August, 2005 and the petitioner has filed the present petition on 16th April, 2010. Thus the petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It may be noted that though the order of summoning was issued on 22nd August, 2005. According to the petitioner, however the summons were not served on the petitioner as no steps were taken by the respondent. The summons were served only in the year 2010 when the petitioner immediately filed the present petition. The complaint filed by the respondent in the present case makes an interesting reading. Though the name of the petitioner has been mentioned at serial No. 8 in the memo of parties of the criminal complaint however, nothing beyond that has been stated. Further the complaint makes no allegations against the petitioner specifically as in paragraph 2 of the complaint after the word accused number blanks have been left. Para 2 of the complaint is reproduced as under: