Judgment

B. N. KIRPAL, J.

( 1 ) ). Special leave granted.

( 2 ) ). The appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent as well as her brother-in-law Anoop Bhakoo under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act because of dishonour of a cheque which had been issued by M/s Sutlez Knitwears of which Anoop Bhakoo and the respondent were partners. Against the summoning order passed by the magistrate, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 Crpc after the respondents application for discharge was unsuccessful.

( 3 ) ). The High Court invoked the provisions of Section 141 of the negotiable Instruments Act and came to the conclusion that as the respondent was not in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business, therefore the order summoning her was bad in law.

( 4 ) ). We are of the opinion that at the stage of summoning when evidence was yet to be led by the parties, the High Court could not on an assumption of facts come to a finding of fact that the respondent was not responsible for the conduct of the business. On this ground alone, these appeals are allowed and the impugned decision of the High Court is set aside.