JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the criminal complaint bearing case CIS No.NACT-2896 of 2018 dated 13.09.2018 titled as M/s Chhabra Yarns v. M/s Ashish Handloom Industries and others (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure P-2), the order dated 20.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s Ashish Handloom Industries, its proprietor Ashish Dua and the present petitioner-Swati Dua who was stated to be the Chief Executive Officer of the said concern. As per the allegations three cheques i.e. Cheque No.354455 dated 20.07.2018, Cheque No. 354456 dated 23.07.2018 and Cheque No.354457 dated 25.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each had been issued which had been dishonoured. Based on the evidence led, a summoning order (Annexure P-2) came to be passed on 13.09.2018. A copy of the complaint dated 10.09.2018 and the summoning order dated 14.09.2018 are attached to the present petition as Annexures P-1 and P-2.

3. Pursuant to the said order of summoning, an application was moved for discharge on behalf of the petitioner. The said application also came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2022 (Annexure P-4).

4. The complaint dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure P-1), the summoning order dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 20.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) are under challenge in the instant petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was neither a signatory nor a proprietor in the accused concern i.e. Ashish Handloom Industries. The proprietor of the same was Ashish Dua, husband of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner had been falsely implicated merely because she was the wife of the said proprietor and had wrongly been called a Chief Executive Officer. He contends that in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of ' Raghu Lakshminarayanan v. M/s Fine Tubes , 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 571, Alka Khandu Avhad v. Amar Syamprasad Mishra & Anr. 2021(2) RCR (Criminal) 286' and a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of ' M.M. Lal v. State of NCT of Delhi and another, (2013) ACD 766', the proceedings qua the petitioner were liable to be quashed. He also contends that in one other case against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, she stands discharged vide order 09.02.2021 passed by the JMIC, Panipat (Annexure P-5).

6. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contends that a perusal of the complaint would reveal specific allegations against the petitioner as also her husband-Ashish Dua, who is undoubtedly the proprietor. The petitioner was the Chief Executive Officer and therefore, cannot escape her liability. He, therefore, contends that the present petition being devoid of merits ought to be dismissed.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The same are reproduced hereinbelow:-

" 138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an ac-count maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liabilit