Amrit Rani vs Surinder Kumar Sachdeva

G.S. Chahal, J. (OraL)

Smt. Amrit Rani by means of this criminal misc. under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the petition be accepted (sic) complaint Annexure P1 and the summoning order Annexure P2.

The facts as gathered from the complaint Annexure P1, on the basis of which offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and others, may briefly be stated.

The complainantfirm manufactures girders and channels, M/s Ambay Enterprises, Mandi Gobindgarh, accusedrespondent1, which consists of Ashok Kumar, accused2 and Smt Amrit Rani, accused3, as partners, purchased from the complainant goods worth Rs. 3,28.401.83. When demand was raised by the complainant the accused issued a cheque dated 201290 for Rs. 2,00,000/ drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Kukkar Majra. On presentation, this cheque was dishonoured for want of funds. The cheque had been issued by the accused with criminal intention, knowing fully well that there was no arrangement for that amount. On receipt of intimation from the bank, a notice was issued by the complaintfirm to the respondentpetitioner, but the amount in question had not been paid.

The complainantrespondents have not put in appearance after service and were proceeded against exparte.

Sh. M.L. Merchea, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that there is no allegation in the complaint about the petitioner''s being incharge of the respondentCompany for the conduct of its business and the cheques had also not been issued under her signatures and as such, no criminal offence is made out against her on the allegations made.

I have summoned the original record which shows the cheque was issued by Ashok Kumar. According to Section 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, if the person committing the offence u/s 138 is a Company, then every person who at the time of commission of the offence was incharge of or responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business, becomes liable for that act, along with the Company itself. In the complaint Annexure P1 there is no allegation that Smt. Amrit Rani was incharge of the business of the company or was responsible to the Company for its business. The cheque was also not issued by her and as such no offence is made out form a simple reading of the impugned complaint. I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned complaint and the summoning order qua Smt. Amrit Rani, petitioner.