MEENU GOYAL Vs. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the summoning order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby the petitioner has been summoned for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the N.I. Act) by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 5618/2019.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is one of the directors of M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited (respondent no.2 herein). The petitioner's husband namely Krishan Gopal Goyal (respondent no.3 herein) is the other director of the said company. M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited is in the business of sales, marketing and distribution of GSM and CDMA mobile handsets, data cards, smart phones, LED TVs, Air-Conditioners etc. M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited entered into a Distributorship Agreement dated 12.02.2016 with M/s Micromax Informatics Limited (complainant/respondent no. 1 herein) on the basis of which they became an authorized distributor on non-exclusive basis. During the course of business, it was alleged by the complainant company that M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited had an outstanding balance of Rs.24,00,878.56/- against which it issued a cheque bearing no. 279362 dated 06.03.2019 for an amount of Rs.24,00,878/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. However, on presentation, vide return memo dated 08.03.2019, the said cheque was returned unpaid due to the reason "payment stopped by the drawer". The complainant company issued a legal notice dated 29.03.2019 to M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited as well as its directors i.e., the present petitioner and her husband Krishan Gopal Goyal. A reply to the legal notice on behalf of M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited as well as its directors was also sent. Simultaneously, M/s Beyond Tele Private Limited also issued a legal notice through its director Krishan Gopal Goyal to the complainant company and its directors claiming that an amount of Rs.16,53,992/- was due to them. Subsequently, an Insolvency Petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was also filed against the complainant company before the National Company Law Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Praveen Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same was passed by the trial court without due application of mind. He submitted that the impugned cheque was in fact towards security and not meant towards discharge of any legal liability. He also submitted that though the present petitioner is a director but not incharge of day-to-day affairs of the company as she was not an active director. He has referred to the legal notice, the complaint as well as the pre-summoning evidence filed by way of an affidavit by the complainant company to submit that no specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner which satisfy the ingredients of Section 141 of the N.I. Act.