ANJU MAHAJAN Vs. M G CAPITAL SERVICES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and for setting aside the orders dated 20.07.2009and 19.08.2009, by which notice was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the petitioner/accused No.4.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the complaint filed by respondent No.1/ complainant against her client, accused No.4 is not maintainable as a bare reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. She submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate completely overlooked the fact that the cheque of 8 lacs, subject matter of the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was issued by respondent No.3 (accused No.2), Shri Ravi Gupta in his capacity as a partner of M/s Sunlit Securities. However, the memo of parties of the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant reveals that M/s Sunlit Securities was not impleaded in the present case. A perusal of the memo of parties filed by respondent No.1/complainant reveals that M/s Sunlit Financial Services was impleaded as accused No.1, with its address given as "C/o M/s Sunlit Securities, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot". Respondent No.3 and the petitioner herein were impleaded as partners of M/s Sunlit Securities. It is the case of the petitioner that M/s Sunlit Financial Services is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act. The certificate of incorporation of M/s Sunlit Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. is enclosed as Annexure P-4. The said company was incorporated under the Companies Act on 06.04.1999. The Articles of Association and the Memorandum of. Association are also placed on record. All these documents are stated to have been filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondent No.1/complainant states that the transaction, for which the cheque had been issued to the complainant, was with M/s Sunlit Securities. He asserts that the complainant never dealt with M/s Sunlit Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. He seeks to rely on the partnership deed of M/s Sunlit Securities to state that the same indicates that the business of the partnership firm was being done under the name and style of M/s Sunlit Financial Services w.e.f. 01.08.1998. However, the very same partnership deed relied upon by respondent No.1/complainant reveals, in para 1 thereof, that it was agreed between the partners that the business of the firm would be carried on under the name and style of M/s Sunlit Securities with its head office at Dalhousie Road, Pathankot.