IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14336 of 2011 SMT. SONALI THANAWALA Versus M/S SANDEEP INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kapil Duggal - learned counsel with Shri Rakesh Kumar Laad - Advocate for the petitioner Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

WITH MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13130 of 2010 SMT. SONALI THANAWALA Versus M/S SANDEEP INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rakesh Kumar Laad - learned counsel with Shri Kapil Duggal -Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Amit Dubey - Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER Since, both the petitions are arising from the same complaint, therefore, are being decided by this Court passing a common order.

M.Cr.C.No.14336/2011 has been filed for quashing the order dated

07.03.2011 and 16.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 3773/2008, whereby the learned JMFC has taken the cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, whereas another M.Cr.C.No. 13130/2010 has been filed seeking quashment of order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2010, affirming the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa in Criminal Case No. 3773 of 2008, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner for deleting her name and discharging her from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case (from M.Cr.C.No.13130/2010) are that respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 arraying the their firm as party (herein respondent No.2). It is alleged that the company had purchased cotton bales from respondent No. 1 amounting to Rs.20,37,752/-, and in discharge of the said liability, two cheques were issued, which was signed by respondent No. 3. The cheque, upon presentation, was dishonored and thus respondent No. 1 sent a legal notice and thereafter filed a complaint before the competent Court of Law.

3. The petitioner is stated to be a Director of respondent No.

2/Company along with respondent No.3, who is her husband. It is the case of the petitioner that due to matrimonial differences she had been residing at her parental home in Mumbai and was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. She contends that she was neither a signatory to the cheque in question nor responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the complaint does not contain any specific averment that the petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, as required under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Her implication is solely on account of her designation as a Director. The learned trial Court considered that the petitioner appeared to have been wrongly impleaded but held that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, reported in 2004 (7) SCC 338 it had no power to recall the summoning order once issued. The revisional Court affirmed the said order.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposed the petition and supported the impugned orders arguing that being the director of company, the petitioner is equally responsible for the default and thus, she is liable to be prosecuted. At this preliminary stage, quashment is not permissible under the law. The learned trial Court as well as Revisional Court have rightly observed that there is no provision under the Cr.P.C to recall its own order.

5. Heard and perused the material.

6. The essential requirement for fastening vicarious liability upon a Director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that the complaint must contain specific