URVASHI KORPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) URVASHI Korpal, who is accused No.5 in criminal complaint Annexure P-1 instituted by respondent No.2 - complainant under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) and Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code (IPC), has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing complaint Annexure P-1 as well as summoning order dated 23.08.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon, thereby ordering summoning of all the five accused under Section 138 of the Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to complainant, accused Nos.2 to 5 (including the petitioner) are Directors of accused No.1- company. Accused Nos.2 to 5 were responsible for and incharge of the conduct of business of accused No.1 within the meaning of Section 141 of the Act. Eight cheques were issued by accused No.1-company in favour of the complainant. The same were dishonoured. In spite of requisite' demand notice, cheque amount was not paid to the complainant, leading to the filing of the complaint Annexure P-1.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner had resigned as Director of accused No.1-company in March, 2010 and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Act because the cheques were presented thereafter in June, 2010 when the petitioner was not Director of accused No.1-company. The contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, it has to be adjudicated during trial as to whether the petitioner had in fact resigned from accused No.1-company in March, 2010 or not and if so, when and to what effect. Secondly, out of eight cheques in question, two cheques are dated 06.01.2010 and the same were issued while the petitioner, according to her own version, was still Director of accused No.1-company. Consequently without adjudication, the petitioner cannot be exonerated regarding dishonouring of the said two cheques.