MONICA GOGIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are six petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for dropping/quashing the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 (in short 'N.I.Act'). The complaints under Section 138 N.I.Act have been filed by Shri Neeraj Gupta, proprietor of Colts Contec. The principal accused in these complaints is M/s. Gogia International Securities Ltd., respondent No.3 herein. Accused No.2-Mr.Satish Gogia (respondent No.4 herein) is said to be the Managing Director and Principal Officer while the petitioner, Ms.Monica Gogia-accused No.3 in the complaint, is shown to be the person responsible for the business of the principal accused M/s.Gogia International Securities Ltd. Six complaints have been filed under the same provisions over different cheques issued by accused No.1. The ground on which the proceedings and the complaint are sought to be quashed are common in all the petitions. Therefore, by this judgment all these six petitions will be disposed of.

(2.) All the petitions have been filed by Mrs.Monica Gogia who is arrayed as respondent No.3 in all the complaints. It is contended by the petitioner that she is neither the Director nor the Principal Officer of the company known as Gogia International Securities Limited, that she is not the person incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the company, that the allegations in respect of her involvement in the company is merely a bold assertion unsupported by any evidence, that in the annual report of the company for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the name of the petitioner does not appear as the Director, that she was not a party to the transaction, that although initially she was the subscriber as shown in the Memorandum and Articles of Association the company was actually being managed by Shri Satish Gogia, respondent No.4/accused No.2 in the complaint, that respondent No.4 being 100% disabled below his waist was being assisted by the petitioner who is his wife and that without considering all these aspects the M.M. has issued summons to her under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

(3.) The petition is vehemently opposed on the ground that on none of her averments made in petition the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act can be quashed. It is contended on behalf of respondent No.2, Neeraj Gupta, that there is sufficient averment in the complaint that the petitioner was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and, therefore, liable to be prosecuted under Section 138 N.I.Act. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Nanjundeswara vs. M.S.Varlak Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2002 Dishonour of Cheque Reporter 6 where the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court can be justified in quashing the proceedings only if it comes to the conclusion that even the statements taken on the face value do not make out any offence. In the facts of the case before the Supreme Court it was found that a case for quashing the complaint had been made out.