9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashment of orders summoning the petitioner for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on complaints filed by M/s International Print-O-Pac Ltd. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, accused No. 3, was summoned along with accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 by the Metropolitan Magistrate based on complaints filed by M/s International Print-O-Pac Ltd. The complaints alleged that cheques issued by accused No. 1 were dishonored due to insufficient funds, implicating the accused company and its directors, including the petitioner. 2. The petitioner denied any involvement in transactions with the complainant, stating that her husband, accused No. 2, handled all dealings of the accused company. The complaints did not attribute any specific act to the petitioner except for her role as a director. The petitioner argued that she should not have been summoned for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 3. The Court emphasized that the responsibility of each accused must be established before summoning them. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that the complainant must specify how each accused, especially a director, is responsible for the alleged offence. Without clear allegations and basis for responsibility, summoning a director solely based on their position is not justified. 4. In this case, the complainant failed to provide any specific allegations against the petitioner regarding her involvement in the dishonored cheques. The Court found the complaint's assertion that the petitioner, as a director, was responsible for the company's conduct to be a mere bald allegation without substantiation. Consequently, the Metropolitan Magistrate erred in summoning the petitioner based on vague accusations, leading the Court to quash the orders and discharge the petitioner in all five complaints filed by M/s International Print-O-Pac Ltd.
|
