MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), is for quashing of Complaint bearing No. 6817 of 2017 (Annexure P-3), titled as M/s Balwant Singh Gurpartap Singh v. V.I.R. Foods Limited and others, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’) as well as for quashing of the order dated 05.01.2019 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner had been summoned to face trial in the aforesaid complaint, along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner and the co-accused on the allegations that M/s VIR Foods Limited had business dealings with the complainant regarding supply of paddy/Basmati and in discharge of its liability, the accused persons had issued cheque bearing No. 934106 dated 31.03.2017 amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Phase 7, Mohali, which was signed by accused No. 3-Mohit Dewan with the knowledge of accused No. 2-Kamal Dewan and was handed over to the complainant through accused No. 3 and accused No.4/petitioner Lavish Dewan. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 28.06.2017 on account of “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal demand notice dated 21.07.2017 under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the accused persons including the present petitioner. In response, the petitioner sent a reply-cum-counter notice dated 08.08.2017 specifically asserting that he had no concern with the day-to-day affairs of the accused company and was neither its Director nor employee, and requested withdrawal of the notice. However, dissatisfied with the reply given by the petitioner and non-payment of cheque amount, the respondent instituted the impugned complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act before the Court of learned JMIC, Amritsar, who vide order dated 05.01.2019 summoned the petitioner along with other accused to face trial for commission of the aforementioned offence. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned summoning order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same has been passed in a mechanical manner, without proper application of judicial mind. It is further argued that the petitioner was neither a working Director nor an employee of accused Company M/s VIR Foods Limited at the time of issuance of the cheque in question and had no role whatsoever in the day-to-day affairs or management of the Company. The petitioner had only briefly served as a non-working Director from 20.02.2013 to 20.05.2013 and had thereafter resigned from the Directorship on 20.05.2013 vide Annexure P-7 and the same stood duly reflected in the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Therefore, on the date of issuance of the cheque dated 31.03.2017, the petitioner had already ceased to have any association with the Company.

4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint lacks the mandatory averments required under Section 141 of the N. I. Act as there is no specific assertion that the petitioner was in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the relevant time. The learned counsel s