JUDGMENT :

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily against R1 with the following prayers:

"It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

1) Allow the Petition and quash complaint case nos. 2863 of 2019, 2851 of 2019, 2856 of 2019, 2869 of 2019 and 2873 of 2019 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the court of Ms. Alka Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, South Delhi as against the Petitioner.

2) Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem lit and proper.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY."

2. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by his counsel Mr. V.M. Kannan that the proceedings have been initiated by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM for short) Saket Courts, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act hereinafter) purportedly on the ground that the petitioner was a Director of the respondent No. 2. According to him, the cheques in question, all dated December 31, 2018 were issued by the respondent No. 2 for a total amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs and the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds vide memo dated January 11, 2019. He stated that as per the complaints, the respondent No. 1 had disbursed Venture Capital Funding of Rs. 45 Lakhs to the respondent No. 2 in terms of an agreement dated March 03, 2011. The cheques in question were purportedly issued by the respondent No. 2 to discharge its liability towards the respondent No. 1.

3. He submitted that the petitioner ceased to be a Director of the respondent No. 2 w.e.f. October 27, 2010, at least eight years prior to the issuance of the cheques in question. The petitioner was a Non-Executive Director of the respondent No. 2 for a brief period between October 07, 2009 to October 27, 2010. The resignation of the petitioner was also notified to the Registrar of Companies/Ministry of Company Affairs (MCA for short) by the respondent No. 2 by filing Form 32 dated January 04, 2011, which is a public document.

4. According to Mr. Kannan, the respondent No. 1 has suppressed these publicly available documents along with the complaint against the petitioner. He submitted that the Company's Master Data available on the website of MCA also does not reflect the name of the petitioner as a Director. However, the learned MM in a mechanical manner only by considering Company Master Data of the period when the petitioner was Director has entertained the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and without applying any judicial mind and without recording any satisfactory reasons as to whether the offence is made out against the petitioner has issued the summons.

5. He submitted that both the events that resulted in the complaints i.e., the agreement and the issuance of the cheques are events that took place after October 27, 2010 when the petitioner ceased to be a Director of the respondent No. 2. The legal notice dated January 28, 2019 allegedly sent by the respondent No. 1 was never received by the petitioner. Also the tracking report filed by the respondent No. 1 in that regard before the learned MM does not show that the said notice was delivered to the petitioner. Even the averments in the complaints filed by the respondent No. 1 are sketchy and in no way demonstrate how the complaints are maintainable against the petitioner. The essential ingredients for maintaining a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act are absent with respect to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 has failed to show in what manner and how the petitioner was responsible for the affairs of the respondent No. 2. The issuance of summons was contrary to the settled position of law in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court wh