IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25407-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision 09.02.2026 SONIA JAIN ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Ms. Neetu Singh Aashat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. R.S. Bal, Advocate for the respondent No.2-complainant.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH . J .

1. The quashing of complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and also the order dated 24.09.2021 passed in the above-mentioned complaint, has been sought by virtue of present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against a company namely ‘M/s Noble Steels Pvt. Ltd.’ and its Directors namely, Sonia Jain (petitioner herein) and Ashu Jain. In the above-mentioned case, the petitioner has been summoned as an accused. The petitioner has filed the present petition by alleging that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that in the complaint there was nothing on record to show that on the day when existing liability was created or the cheque was issued in favour of complainant-respondent No.2 herein, the petitioner had ceased to be a director of the company.

3. Heard.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that four cheques were issued by a company known as ‘Noble Steels Pvt. Ltd.’ in favour of respondent No.2, for a sum of Rs.5,01,803/-, Rs.5,66,184/-, Rs.6,19,377/- and Rs. 5,57,486/-, drawn on India bank, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana, and that the above-said cheques were dishonoured by the banker of above-mentioned company, and thus, the above-mentioned company and its Directors were responsible for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of above-mentioned allegations without looking into the fact that the petitioner was neither signatory to the cheque nor a director on the date of issuing the cheque, the summoning order against the petitioner has been passed.

5. With regard to above, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a director in the above-mentioned company but till 20.03.2021 only, when she had resigned from the Directorship. As per learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to above-mentioned resignation a resolution was adopted by the Board of Directors and the information was also given to the Registrar of company by uploading information on the website in the format DIR12. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, once the petitioner was neither a signatory to the cheque nor on the Board of Directors of the company, namely ‘M/s Noble Steels Pvt. Ltd.’, she could not have been prosecuted for any default committed by the company, with regard to dishonour of cheque issued on behalf of company.

6. The learned State counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that a clever move has been made by the petitioner to wriggle out of the consequences of dishonour of cheque issued by the company. According to learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in fact the petitioner is the wife of another Director of the company namely Ashu Jain, and that a false document has been created by the petitioner to save her skin from the liability with regard to dishonour of cheque. As per learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in fact total 16 cheques were issued by the company of the petitioner and her husband, and that all the 16 cheques were dishonoured and therefore, for the commission of above- mentioned offence four different complaints, pertaining to four cheques each were filed. The learned co