SUJA JOHNSON Vs. JITENDRA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the 3rd accused in case pending in C. C. No. 6040 of 2003 before the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai for prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) seeks quash of proceedings against her.

(2.) IN the said case, the 1st accused is a company by name M/s. Noble Aqua Pvt. Limited and the 2nd accused is the Managing Director of the company. The 2nd accused has towards the dues of the 1st accused company to the complainant, issued two cheques, which came to be dishonoured. The complainant had followed the procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Act and preferred the complaint.

(3.) THE : short point in support of the petition and which necessarily has to be accepted is that the petitioner herein has been arrayed as 3rd accused on the bald allegations that she is the director of the company and is actively taking part in the conduct of its day-to-day affairs. As repeatedly held by the Honourable Apex Court that such bald allegation will not suffice. Further, the requirement set forth in the decision of SMS Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla and another 2005 (5) CTC 65: (AIR 2005 SC 3512) to the effect that the complaint should have a necessary averment that the person who is arrayed as an accused, as a director was at the time of commission of offence incharge of and responsible of the company is not met in the present complaint under challenge.