TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S. Bakshi, Adv. for Respondent No.2 JUDGMENT Manju Goel, 1. These are five petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the orders summoning the petitioner for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for which five complaints have been filed by the respondent No. 2 M/s International Print-O-Pac Ltd. The impugned orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Crl.M.C.254/2005 relates to the complaint in respect of three cheques bearing No. 889721 for ₹ 1,64,671/- and cheque No. 889722 for ₹ 1,64,671/- and cheque No. 889723 for ₹ 1,00,000/-. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 3 and is described as "Smt. Rachna Kapoor, Director". The allegation about her is available in para 13 in each of the complaints in the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny used to be handled by her husband who is the accused No. 2 in the complaints, that in the complaint not even a single act relating to the transaction in question has been attributed to the petitioner except making the bald allegation as quoted above and that Therefore the orders summoning her for the offence is bad. 4. To what extent the petitioner is involved in the conduct of the business of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of Katta Sujatha (Smt.) vs . Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2002)7SCC655 as also the judgment of this Court in the case of Cdr. Shekhar Singh Vs. N.K. Wahi 2003 [1] JCC 52. 5. In the present case, it is clear that the complainant has alleged nothing against the petitioner except saying that she is the Director of the accused company. The allegation ....