J.P. Singh, J.: These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning Order dated 16.11.2004 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and for quashing of the complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Siddharath Luthra, learned counsel for respondent and have gone through the impugned Order as also copies of the documents placed on the file.

2. Briefly the facts are that M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd, filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s City Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd and its Directors S. Shri Vijay Kumar Chabra, Dinesh Kumar Chabra and Rajinder Kumar Chabra. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No. 1 is a multi-brand dealer and was one of the several hundred authorised dealers of the complainant. Complainant supplied its Sony and AIWA products to accused No. 1 and four running accounts were maintained. The account of Sony branded products was settled till 19.6.2004 when a sum of Rs. 8,16,935 was credited to the account of the accused towards obsolete stock and other shemes. to settle the accounts regarding AIWA, a sum of Rs. 8,,70,000 was paid by the accused to the complainant on 7.6.2004.

3. Further it is alleged that with a view to settle the outstanding in the Sony branded products accounts subsequent to 19.6.2004 till 14.10.2004, the accused issued the cheque bearing No. 608977 dated 14.10.2004 in the sum of Rs. 27,75,092 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi towards discharge of legal liability in favour of the complainant. The accused No. 2 to 4 from time to time duly assured the representatives of the complainant that the cheque would be honoured upon presentation. But the cheque on presentation was did-honoured with remarks “payment stopped”. It is alleged that the accused knew that the cheque would not be honoured and had fraudulently given it to the complainant. Statutory notice was sent but in vain.

4. In para 13 of the complaint, it is alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 4 being Directors , as such are in-charge and are responsible for the day to day business of accused No. 1, hence they are liable to be prosecuted, evidence by way of affidavit was filed with the complaint.

5. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate perused the material on record, heard arguments on the point of summoning the prima facie found that the cheque issued by the accused, in discharge of its liability in favour of the complainant had been dishonoured, the amount was not paid despite notice, the complaint was within limitation period and the averments as well as documents have been perused, therefore, a prima facie case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was made out for summoning the accused and accordingly, the accused persons were summoned vide Order 16.11.2004.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the complainant makes no averments as to how petitioners (Directors) are in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. It is argued that the impugned cheque No. 608977 stood discharged as another cheque in lieu thereof was issued as is evident from the writing on the back side of the cheque and the correspondence on record and the cheque issued in lieu was encashed by the complainant. There is also allegation that four bank cheque including the cheque in question were received by the complainant (page 25 of the paper book of both the petitions). Meaning thereby that the cheque has been fraudulently filled up much later and presented.

7. As against this learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has drawn my attention to para 13 of the complaint in which requisite averments have been made and has argued that the endorsement on the back of the cheque was stealthily fabricated by the accused persons and does not bear signatures of the complainant or any