The main legal point established in the judgment is that the summoning of an accused in a criminal case should be based on sufficient material and should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 1796-M, 1799-M, 1802-M, 1805-M and 1808-M of 2005, filed by petitioner Shekhar Suman, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of five different complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pertaining to five different cheques, and the summoning orders dated 15.9.2004, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, in those complaints, qua him. In all the five cases, allegations are almost the same, except the amount of the cheques. The facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. 1796-M of 2005.

2. In the complaint, respondent Narender alleged that M/s Growell Multi Trade India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the accused Company), which was engaged in the business of multi level marketing (arrayed as accused No. 1 in the complaint) issued the cheque in order to discharge his liability of the commission income. The cheque was signed by the Managing Director of the Company (arrayed as accused No. 3 in the complaint), but not by the petitioner (arrayed as accused No. 2 in the complaint). The said cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured vide memo dated 12.6.2004 with remarks "payment stopped by drawer". After notice, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 138 of the Act. It is alleged that the petitioner is the Chairman of the accused Company. In the complaint, four persons have been arrayed as accused, the Company as accused No. 1, petitioner as accused No. 2, the Managing Director and one of the Directors as accused No. 3 and 4, respectively. After recording the statement of the complainant on affidavit as preliminary evidence, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal has summoned all the four accused.

3. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order passed therein qua him, by stating that he has been unnecessarily arrayed as an accused, whereas he has nothing to do with the affairs of the Company. He is neither a share holder, nor a Director nor the Managing Director nor the Chairman. He has never signed any cheque for or on Behalf of the accused Company. It has been further stated that except the vague averments in the complaint that accused No. 2 to 4 are liable for all acts and liabilities of the accused company being in-charge of and responsible to the conduct of the business of the said Company, there is no other cogent material placed on record by the respondent, which prima facie show that the petitioner was in-charge of and responsible to the accused Company for the conduct of its business. The petitioner has placed on record the Memorandum of Association and Article of Association of the accused Company as Annexure P-3. According to these documents, accused No. 3 and 5 and the other persons are the Managing Director and Directors of the Company. The name of petitioner does not figure any where. The petitioner has also placed on record copy of Form No. 32 as Annexure P-4, in which the intimation regarding the changes, in the management of the accused Company was sent to the Company Law Board. In the said document also, name of the petitioner does not figure any where. The petitioner states that he is a T.V. and film actor. He was engaged as a Brand Ambassador by the accused Company to promote its products. In this regard, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 7.1.2004. Clause 6 of this memorandum clearly states that "the company is providing its business concept, brand name on its own risk and will be fully responsible for any dispute related to the same. In no way or not matter "Mr. Shekhar Suman" will be responsible for any legal or illegal action related to brand name, business concept or designs provided by the company." It has been stated that at present, the petitioner is not the Brand Ambassador of the Company. According to the petitioner, these facts clearly establish that he has nothing to do wi