RACHNA KAPOOR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are five petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C, seeking quashment of the orders summoning the petitioner for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for which five complaints have been filed by the respondent No. 2 M/s. International Print-O-Pac Ltd. The impugned orders in all the five complaints are similar and have been passed on 16.2.2004. The complaints are similar. The complainant M/s. International Print-O-Pac Ltd. alleges that the accused No. 1 M/s. National Food Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. issued several cheques towards repayment of its dues towards the complainant and these cheques when presented were returned unpaid on account of insufficiency of funds. The Crl. M.C. 188/2005 relates to the complaint in respect of three cheques bearing No. 889715, 889716 and 889717 for Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The Crl. M.C. 185/2005 relates to the complaint in respect of three cheques bearing No. 889712, 889713 and 889714 for Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The Crl. M.C. 192/2005 relates to the complaint in respect of cheque No. 387698 dated 10.6.2003 for Rs.2,00,000/-. The Crl. M.C. 254/2005 relates to the complaint in respect of three cheques bearing No. 889721 for Rs. 1,64,671/- and cheque No. 889722 for Rs. 1,64,671/- and cheque No, 889723 for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 3 and is described as 'Smt. Rachna Kapoor, Director'. The allegation about her is available in para 13 in each of the complaints in the following language-

(2.) The Metropolitan Magistrate has summoned the petitioner along with the accused No.1 which is the company and accused No. 2 who is also a Director of the company as well as the present petitioner on the basis of the allegation in the complaint and the affidavit filed by the complainant.

(3.) The petitioner in these petitions alleges that she has never dealt with the complainant in -any manner whatsoever, that all the transactions cf the accused company used to be handled by her husband who is the accused No. 2 in the complaints, that in the complaint not even a single act relating to the transaction in question has been attributed to the petitioner except making the bald allegation as quoted above and that therefore the orders summoning her for the offence is bad.