JUDGMENT :

Jyoti Singh, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the summoning order dated 28.11.2016 and the complaint bearing CC No. 6573/2017 filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner under Sections 138 /141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ' NIA ') as well as all further proceedings emanating therefrom including the order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge NDPS in Criminal Revision bearing CR No. 114/2019 titled as Dharna Goyal v. M/s. Aryan Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

2. Brief facts shorn of unnecessary details are that a complaint was filed by the Respondent against M/s. Ringing Bells Pvt. Ltd., Accused No. 1 and five other Accused persons including the Petitioner herein under Sections 138 /141/142 of the NIA . It was alleged in the complaint that in discharge of legal liability, Accused No. 1 issued a cheque bearing No. 731759 dated 28.10.2016 for an amount of Rs. 2 crores, duly signed by Accused No. 2, with the consent and knowledge of the other Co-accused including the Petitioner and that the same was dishonoured on presentation. A legal notice of demand dated 02.11.2016 was sent on 04.11.2016 by the complainant but despite the receipt of the notice the Accused persons failed to remit the alleged outstanding amount. On the filing of the complaint, the Trial Court summoned the Accused including the Petitioner. The Petitioner herein has been arrayed as Accused No. 5 in the capacity of CEO of Accused No. 1 Company.

3. As per the Petitioner, she received the summons for the first time on 10.01.2019 and immediately thereafter preferred a Criminal Revision bearing CR No. 114/2019 on 28.02.2019, challenging the summoning order. On 25.03.2019 the Sessions Court issued notice to the Respondent and the Petitioner took repeated steps to effect service on the Respondent through his counsel before the Trial Court. However, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Vide order dated 04.12.2019 the Sessions Court dismissed the Revision petition and the Petitioner approached this Court.

4. It needs to be mentioned that vide order dated 08.06.2020 this Court after capturing the controversy involved issued notice to the Respondent, returnable on 06.07.2020. When the petition was listed on 06.07.2020 counsel for the Petitioner submitted that she had served the Respondent through the electronic mode and sought time to place on record an affidavit to that effect. Report of the Registry regarding service on the Respondent through other permissible modes was not on record and the Registry was directed to place the same on record. When the petition was listed on 16.07.2020, the Report of the Registry, placed on record, indicated that the Respondent had been served through e-mail. Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the notice sent at the registered e-mail address of the complainant, available in the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, had not bounced back and was therefore deemed to have been received. Although no one appeared for the Respondent, no adverse orders were passed by the Court. Counsel for the Petitioner