Shruti Jain v. Aromatrix Flora Pvt Ltd & Ors.

1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the complaint case bearing no.3054/1/2011 titled Aromatrix Flora P.Ltd. Vs. Achtyut Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. which is presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

2. Mr. Ahuja, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner ought not to have been summoned as an accused in the aforesaid complaint case on the ground that no notice of demand was ever served on her. Secondly, though the petitioner was the signatory to the cheques in question but she was not the beneficiary of the goods which was received in lieu of the cheques issued by the company in question. It is also contended by him that the petitioner was only employed by the company in question on a meager amount of Rs.1000/- per month for the purpose of signing the cheques which was being done by her under the direction of the company.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The case set up by the respondent in the complaint is that the accused company Achtyut Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and accused nos. 2 and 3, Sh. Dilip Mishra and Shri Sujeet Mishra are the Directors of the said company while accused no.4 Sh. Raman Sharan is an officer of the company who was also the Ex-Director and was involved in day to day affairs of the company while the present petitioner accused no.5, Ms. Shruti Jain was the authorized signatory of the accused company, who has signed the cheque purported to have been issued by the accused company as a consideration for having received the goods supplied by the respondent company.

5. On dishonour of the cheque a demand notice was issued on 04.05.2010 on behalf of the respondent/company and since pursuant to the notice no amount was paid to the respondent, a complaint was filed.

6. The learned Magistrate after recording pre-summoning evidence, passed the following order summoning the accused persons including accused no.5, the present petitioner.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no demand notice was ever issued by the respondent/complainant to the present petitioner, which is a disputed question of fact, more so, when the petitioner herself has not placed any copy of the notice along with the present petition, which has been issued by the respondent. A disputed question of fact can never be a reason for quashing of the complaint.

8. So far as the question that the petitioner is getting only a --'< meager amount of money for signing of the cheque, is concerned, that is also of no relevance because admittedly the present petitioner was a signatory to the cheques which were dishonoured. Therefore, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises coupled with the fact that the petitioner was an authorized signatory of the cheques in question which resulted into summoning of the present petitioner. I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as all the questions which are being raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the instant petition are disputed question of the facts which cannot be decided without permitting the parties to adduce evidence.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed.

10. Normally, L while dismissing such petition costs are not imposed but since these points have been persistently urged by the J petitioner a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed. This cost shall be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee failing which the learned Magistrate will ensure the recovery of the costs in terms of Section 421 Cr.P.C. SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 b V.K. SHALI,J -;! '[