JYOTSANA PARASHAR Vs. H.R. KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is under section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of summoning order dated 27.01.2011 passed by the MM in a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act filed by the respondent. The respondent/complainant had filed a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act read with section 142 (b) of the N.I. Act. The said complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner and her husband Chandra Shekhar Parashar, arrayed as accused No. 2 and 1 respectively. The allegations were that Mr. Parashar was dealing with him for the purchase of his chamber for his wife (petitioner) It was alleged that an agreement dated 16.12.2009 was entered into between the complainant and Mr. Parashar in the presence of the petitioner and from the beginning to the end all the relevant documents were signed by him and the payments were also made by him from his bank account for and on behalf of his wife. It was averred that the accused No. 2 i.e. the petitioner did not talk to the complainant and thus remained a sleeping party in the whole transaction despite the fact that the Chamber was purchased in her exclusive name. It was alleged that Mr. Parashar remained defaulter and repeatedly violated terms and conditions of the said agreement. The complainant had also given the details of the payments made by Mr. Parashar to him by way of different cheques which on presentation were encashed. However, according to the petitioner, the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/ - + 5,400/ - towards electricity arrears i.e. a total amount of Rs. 20,400/ - remained to be paid by Mr. Parashar. This amount was paid by him by way of an account payee cheque on 09.04.2010, which cheque on presentation got dishonoured. Thereupon he served a legal notice to Mr. Parashar calling upon him to pay the amount, but he failed to make the payment. It was alleged that since all the documents of purchase of said flat were executed in favour of accused No. 1 i.e. the petitioner herein, she is jointly liable along with her husband.

(2.) THE learned MM vide the impugned order dated 27.01.2011 ordered issue of summons to both the accused persons namely the petitioner and her husband Mr. Parashar. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on various grounds.

(3.) THE sum and the substance of the contention which were raised by the respondent/complainant and are that since the chamber in question was purchased by Mr. Parashar in the name of his wife i.e. the petitioner, and agreement and documents were executed in her favour, she is jointly liable along with her husband Mr. Parashar. It was submitted that she would be liable irrespective of the fact that all the cheques, including the cheque in question, were given by her husband and the notice under section 138 N.I. Act was also given to him and not to the petitioner. It was also his submission that the petitioner and her husband were the owners of the company and she being one of the persons incharge and responsible for the affairs of the company, was vicariously liable under section 141 N.I. Act.