NISHA CHAUDHARY Vs. NIRMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed, against, the orders recorded, on 26.05.2017, by the learned trial judge, whereby, he, after taking cognizance, upon, an offence punishable under Section 138, of, the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , proceeded, to, order for issuance of summons, upon, the petitioner herein.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner herein, has with much fervor, and, vehemence contended that, given the averments borne in the complaint, of, accused one Rajiv Malhotra, being, the sole proprietor, of, M/s Richman Consultant and Advisers, (i) thereupon, prima facie</i> hence, when, the corporate entity aforesaid, is apparently averred in the complaint, to, be under the sole proprietorship of one Rajiv Malhotra, (ii) thereupon, ascription(s) , of, any incriminatory role vis-avis the petitioner herein, wanting in legal strength, besides rendition, of, orders, for, issuance of summons upon her, after cognizance being taken, upon, the apposite complaint, being, also visited with a stain, of, gross illegality, (iii) unless averments, are, borne in the complaint, bearing consonance, with, the substantive provisions, occurring in Section 141, of, the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (iv) comprised in the accused/petitioner herein, being averred to be responsible, for, the conduct of business of the aforesaid company. Provisions of Section 141 of the Act read as under:

(3.) Be that as it may, the further sequel thereof, is that, with there occurring rather categorical averments, in the complaint, of, the petitioner herein, hence, aiding or abetting deceased Rajiv Malhotra, hence, to deliver the dishonoured negotiable amount vis-a-vis her, (i) thereupon, even if the dishonoured negotiable instrument, carries thereon, only, the signatures of deceased Rajiv Malhotra, (ii) nonetheless, with apt ascriptions, being borne therein vis-a-vis the accused/petitioner herein, qua hers abetting or aiding, deceased Rajiv Malhotra, in the latter committing the alleged offence, (iii) thereupon, despite, the negotiable instrument being signatured, solitarily, by deceased Rajiv Malhotra, does not ipso facto hence efface, the incriminatory role of the accused/petitioner, rather the order impugned before this Court is both, apt and tenable.