JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 passed in Revision Petition No. 96/2020, by the learned District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and quash the complaint filed by the Respondent no.2, being CC No. 7398/19, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi."

2. The facts of the case are that in January-2009, accused No2 Guneet Bhasin. accused No. 3 Sumit Bhasin and accused No.4 Smt. Summy Bhasin (Petitioner herein) approached Respondent No 2/Complainant and allured him into investing Rs 50 lacs in their company with the assurance that same would be doubled in five years and relying on such assurances, he invested his lifetime savings with them; and in March-2014 the accused persons failed to return the principal amount with interest being total of Rs 1 Crore but then he was further inducted to invest Rs 20 lacs more with the promise to return Rs. 2 crores on or before March-2019 and that MoU dated 26.07.2018 was executed, whereby accused persons undertook to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.47,53,519/- and a cheque was also issued; and that later MoU dated 05.05.2019 was executed and it was promised that the complainant would be made a partner in the business and receipt of Rs. 50 lacs as principal amount was retained with the promise that it would be safe and secure with them and it would become Rs. 2 crores in 2019: and that on 18.02.2019 another Promissory Note was issued by accused No.2/ Guneet Bhasin in favour of the complainant and his wife acknowledging liability to pay an amount of Rs. 2,47,53,000/- payable to the complainant and his wife on or before 30.06.2019.

3. On 16.07.2019 nine cheques were issued in the tune of Rs. 73,00,000/-. The said cheques on presentation were dishonored, and while cheque at Sr No. 1 was dishonored for the reasons "account closed", the bank returning memos in respect of other cheques from Sr. Nos. 2 to 9 came with the remarks "kindly contact drawer".

4. On receipt of such returning memos dated 17.07.2019, Respondent No 2 served a legal notice dated 12.08.2019 upon the accused persons, which were duly served upon them and even replied through their counsel vide reply dated 27.08.2019, but since no payment was made under the cheque, the complaint was filed on 19.9.2019 by respondent no 2/Complainant.

5. The Petitioner has assailed the Order dated 04.10.2019 vide which she was summoned by the Ld. MM for offences U/s 138 of the N.I. Act The Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court already having availed opportunity under S. 397 Cr.P.C. wherein the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, District West - Tis Harari Courts has dismissed the Revision petition vide Order dated 16.12.2020 The Petitioner seeks quashing of the present proceedings inter-alia on grounds that neither she is a Director nor she has signed the cheques in question nor she ever participated in any of meetings or negotiations with the complainant with regard to the transactions in question nor she ever executed any document with regard thereto, hence she has no role in the offence.

6. It is vehemently urged by the counsel of the petitioner that there are no allegations against the petitioner as to what role she played in the issuance of cheque and there is no clear averment that she was in charge or responsible for the day to day affairs of the company, It was further submitted that summoning order has far reaching consequences and the impugned order suffers from complete non-application of mind. In his submissions, learned counsel has place reliance upon:

a. Sudeep Jain vs. ECE Industries, (2013) 201 DLT 461

b. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal & Anr, (2010) 3 SCC 330

c. Sunil Bharti Mittal versus CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609

d. M