ARUNA SURESH, J.

1. Petitioner Sameer Karnani has filed this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C.?), assailing the order of the trial court dated 4th July, 2007 passed in Complaint Case No.1667/01 of 2007 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as „N.I.Act?) whereby the trial court was pleased to summon the petitioner along with other accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 138 N.I.Act.

2. Complainant (respondent No.2 herein) is a Private Limited Company and is engaged inter alia in the business of travel, tourism and ticketing. On 7th November, 2006 complainant M/s. TSI-Travel Services International Pvt. Ltd. entered into an agreement with accused No.1 company „Arunodaya Travels? through accused No.4 Mrs. Rashima. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were the Directors of accused No.1 company. Thereafter complainant had been providing tickets to accused No.1 company during the course of business dealings. Complainant/respondent No.2 company had been maintaining a running account of the accused in its books of account. During the course of business dealings a sum of Rs.3,33,861/- had become due and payable by the accused company and in discharge of its liability, accused company issued two cheques (i) Cheque No.166009, dated 22.03.2007 drawn on Citibank for a sum of Rs.2,00,565/- & (ii) Cheque No.166008, dated 13.4.2007, drawn on Citibank for a sum of Rs.1,33,296/-.

3. These cheques on presentation were dishonoured with the remark “Insufficient Funds” and on subsequent presentation with the remarks “Payment stopped by drawer”. Resultantly, respondent No.2 issued a legal notice dated 15th May, 2007, posted on 17-18th May, 2007 to the accused persons, calling upon them to pay the cheques amount within the stipulated period of 15 days on receipt of the notice. The legal notice sent to accused No.1 company was returned with the remarks “Always locked”. Petitioner Sameer Karnani (accused No.2, in the complaint) did not send any reply to the legal notice. This notice was duly replied by accused Nos. 3 and 4 separately. Since the accused persons failed to make the payment of the impugned cheques, complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act which is under challenge in this petition.

4. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner had no knowledge of the issuance of the impugned cheques nor he had discharged any responsibility of the company towards business dealings between the complainant and the accused No.1 company; the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner as no specific averments have been made in the complaint to disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner to rope him for vicariously liability for the act of accused No.1 company. He has further submitted that petitioner is not a signatory of the cheques nor he handed over the cheques to the complainant towards discharge of liability of the company as a Director as he never participated in the dealings of the company with the complainant.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ingredients and requirement of Section 141 of the N.I. Act are not made out from the averments in the complaint. The learned M.M. erroneously summoned the petitioner as an accused without application of mind and, therefore, the order of the trial court being illegal deserves to be quashed.

6. None has appeared and contested this petition on behalf of respondent No.2 company for the last two dates of hearing despite service.

7. Mr. M.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/State while refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that it is specifically averred in para 5 of the complaint that petitioner was a Director of the accused No.1 company and was responsible for its day to day business and, th