MEERA GUPTA Vs. MADAN LAL BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEERA Gupta, Neha Gupta, Shailendra Gupta and Pratibha Gupta, the petitioners herein, vide this petition under Section 482 CrPC are seeking quashing of summoning order dated 01st March, 2011 passed against them by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in complaint case under Sections 138/141 N.I.Act bearing No. 434/1 titled ,,Sh. Madan Lal Batra Vs. M/s. Niti Shree Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Madan Lal Batra, respondent, filed above noted criminal complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 N.I. Act against M/s Niti Shree Infrastructure Ltd. and nine others including the petitioners. In the title of the complaint, the petitioners are described as subscribers of M/s Niti Shree Infrastructure Ltd., whereas the other five accused persons, namely, Anil Kumar Jain, Reena Jain, Ankur Jain, Bir Singh and Shashi Ranjan Kumar are described as Managing Director/Director/Manager/Secretary of the company respectively. Basic allegations in the complaint are that the complainant/respondent, pursuant to the advertisement and representation made by M/s Niti Shree Infrastructure Ltd. and the other accused persons, invested ` 2,85,000/- in the development project undertaken by the aforesaid company as advance payment towards the consideration for purchase of 175 sq yd plot in the proposed project. The project did not come through, as such the accused company gave three cheques for `87,500/-, `26,250/- and `2,85,000/- all dated 28.08.2010 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi to the respondent against the refund of his advance payment, interest thereon and the premium. Those cheques, when presented for encashment, were dishonoured. The respondent thus served the aforesaid company and the others including the petitioners with notice under Section 138 N.I. Act, but the petitioners and others failed to pay the amount of cheques within the requisite period. This led to filing of the complaint.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, has submitted that the complainant has made specific allegations that the petitioners were in-charge of day to day affairs and conduct of business of the company, which fact is also supported by the evidence adduced during inquiry. LEARNED counsel for the respondent contended that the initial onus to bring the petitioners within the purview of Section 141 NI Act has been discharged by the respondent and now the onus is on the petitioners to adduce evidence in the trial to show that they were not in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company.