ARTI MITTAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint case no. 1240/2007 titled "Shri Roop Lal Vs. Mr. Amit Mittal and Others " presently pending in the Court of Mr. R.L. Meena, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Alternatively, it has been prayed that the summoning order dated 28th September, 2007 passed by the said learned Metropolitan Magistrate may be set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by the respondent Roop Lal against Sh. Amit Mittal, Managing Director and Smt. Arti Mittal, Director, the present petitioner alleging that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from his hard earned money to Amit Mittal and Arti Mittal for helping their company M/s Dooars Transport Ltd. which was running in losses. It was alleged that Amit Mittal the Managing Director had issued two post dated cheques dated 1st January, 2007 and 13th July, 2007 respectively for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and 1,00,000/- drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Roshanara Road, Delhi for the repayment of the said loan. Both these cheques on presentation were dishonoured and whereupon the respondent no. 1 Roop Lal gave a statutory notice calling upon the present petitioner and the other two accused persons to clear the cheque amount failing which he threatened them with legal action. Since the amount was not paid a complaint under Section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the company, Managing Director and the present petitioner as the Director. It was alleged in the complaint that the present petitioner Arti Mittal being the Director and in-charge responsible for the conduct of the business of the accused firm M/s Dooars Transport Ltd. had committed an offence under Section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After recording of preliminary evidence the petitioner along with the other co-accused have been summoned.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for setting aside the order of summoning and the quashing of the complaint is to the effect that at the time when the two cheques in question are purported to have been issued that is on 1st January, 2007 and 13th July, 2007 which are alleged to have been dishonoured, the present petitioner was not the Director of the accused M/s. Dooars Transport Ltd. For the purpose of canvassing the said argument, the present petitioner has filed true copies of the annual return filed on behalf of Dooars Transport Ltd. for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 before the Registrar of Companies.