JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks setting aside of summoning order dated 25.07.2019 and quashing of CC No. 344/2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act') qua the petitioner, instituted at the instance of respondent no. 2, pending before the Court of Sh. Yashdeep Chahal, Metropolitan Magistrate - 01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case, as set out in the complaint filed by respondent no. 2, i.e., M/s Sesame Foods Pvt. Ltd., are as under:

i. The complaint in the present case was filed against four accused persons, i.e., M/s Shree Ram Developers (accused no. 1), Mr. Ashok Agarwal (accused no. 2), Mr. Shankar Lal Gupta (accused no. 3) and the petitioner (accused no. 4). Accused no. 1 firm was stated to be a partnership concern involved in the business of construction and development and the accused persons were stated to be partners in the said firm.

ii. The accused firm and the respondent no. 2 entered into a `Development Agreement' dated 16.03.2018. Business between the two companies was conducted as per the agreed upon terms and thereafter, the accused firm was supposed to clear the total dues of Rs. 3,02,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore and Two Lakh).

iii. Towards discharge of the aforesaid liability, the accused firm issued various cheques in favour of the respondent no. 2, including cheque no. 051067 dated 27.07.2018 for a sum of Rs. 39,21,652/- and cheque no. 051102 dated 05.08.2018 for a sum of Rs. 34,90,696/-.

iv. The said cheques were presented at State Bank of India, Connaught Place and was returned unpaid on the ground of `funds insufficient', vide return memos dated 24.10.2018.

v. On 20.11.2018, the respondent no. 2 sent a legal notice dated 19.11.2018 to the accused firm, calling upon them to clear the dues of the cheque amount. However, the payment was not made.

vi. Accordingly, the complaint under the notice 138 of the NI Act was filed on 04.01.2019.

vii. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the impugned summoning order dated 25.07.2019, thereby summoning the accused persons including the present petitioner to face trial in the complaint case.

viii. On receipt of the said summons, the petitioner moved an application dated 07.05.2022 seeking discharge from the case. The said application was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 22.02.2023 and put the matter up for framing of notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 has filed two complaint cases, i.e., CC No. 12459/2018 (in relation to dishonour of a third cheque in the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-) and CC No. 344/2019 (subject matter of the present petition). It was submitted that in the previous complaint, i.e., CC No. 12459/2018, the petitioner was not impleaded as an accused person and thereafter, in the subsequent complaint, i.e., CC No. 344/2019, respondent no. 2 arrayed the petitioner as an accused in a routine manner and based on vague and general allegations.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the latter, who is a 65 year old lady, never issued or signed the subject cheques and that she never met with any representative of respondent no 2 in relation to the transaction involved. It was submitted that respondent no. 2 was well aware of the fact that the petitioner had no involvement in the subject transactions, which is also evident from the fact that she was not arrayed as an accused in the earlier complaint, as stated hereinabove. It was submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused only to create pressure on the other partners of the accused firm.

5. It was further submitted that the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 also lacks the necessary averments to illustrate that the petitioner was involved in day-to-day affairs of the accused firm, and therefore, in absence of such averments, the learned Magistrate erred in