The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of specific averments in the complaint to hold any Director or other post holder in the company as vicariously liable for an offence committed under Section 138 of the N.I Act, and the importance of disclosing complete details and specific roles of accused persons in the complaint to avoid harassment to innocent Directors/employees.

SUNITA GUPTA, J. (Oral)

1. By virtue of the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 22.08.2005 whereby petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I Act”) in Complaint Case No.546/1/13 titled as Delhi Paints and Oil Traders v. M/s Mega Lube India Ltd & Ors.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had joined the company as a Director in the year 2001 and resigned from the said post on 27.07.2002. Form 32 was signed and submitted with the Registrar of Companies to this effect on 31.07.2002. Since the date of resignation, the petitioner was not involved in any affairs of the company. The cheques which were dishonoured were dated 18.05.2003, 16.05.2003 and 27.05.2003 which were much later than the time when the petitioner was a Director, therefore, no liability can be accorded against him by the respondent and he has been falsely and maliciously implicated in the matter. Even otherwise, he was not managing the affairs of the company at any point of time. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on him. No notice of dishonour of the cheque was ever sent to the petitioner or was received by him. The petitioner came to know about the complaint case only when non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Immediately he moved the Court for cancellation of the warrant on 21.12.2012. On inspection of Court file, the counsel came to know that some of the other accused persons have also been discharged by this Court, as such it was submitted that the summoning order is bad in law and proceedings qua the petitioner be quashed.

3. I have heard Mr. Kshitij Shakdhar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent and have perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ceased to be Director of the Company much prior to the issuance of the cheque in question, which was allegedly dishonoured. The petitioner even did not receive any legal notice. One of the co-accused Kavita Aggarwal has also challenged the summoning order and the same was quashed by this Court. Copy of the order has been placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the challenge to the impugned order is highly belated inasmuch as, the summons were issued on 22.08.2005 and the petitioner has filed the present petition on 15.07.2013. Thus the petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself. However, it was not disputed that the petition filed by one of the co-accused Kavita Aggarwal was allowed by this Court and the proceedings qua her has been quashed.

6. As regards the delay in approaching the Court, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the pendency of the complaint against him only on 21.12.2012 when non-bailable warrants were issued against him and immediately thereafter he has approached the Court, as such, there is no delay on his part in approaching the Court.

7. I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

8. Although it is true that the order of summoning was issued on 22.08.2005 and the present petition for quashing the complaint qua the petitioner has been filed on 15.07.2013 but there is an averment in the petition that the petitioner came to know about the filing of the complaint only on 21.12.2012 when non-bailable warrants was issued against him and thereafter he immediately approached the Court. That being so, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking the legal remedy available to him under law.

9. Coming to the factual matrix of the case, the allegations so far as the petitioner is concerned find mentioned in para 2 of the complaint which is reproduced as under:-

“That accused No.1 herein is the Limited Company named as M/s Mega Lube India Ltd., a company i