IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2276 of 2008 Date of decision : October 20, 2009 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner versus Parveen ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. KS Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Complainant Satish Kumar has filed this revision petition assailing judgment dated 3.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, thereby allowing revision petition filed by respondent Parveen against summoning order dated 15.1.2004 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner filed criminal complaint, Annexure A/1, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) against Khushal Singh, Balbir Singh and their wives Parveen Kumari (respondent herein) and Devinder Kaur, alleging that they are President- cum-Chairman, General Secretary and Directors respectively of Doaba Social Welfare Society (Regd.). Accused had taken a loan of Rs one lac from the complainant and issued a cheque which was dishonoured. Inspite of demand notice, cheque amount was not paid. Criminal Revision No. 2276 of 2008 -2- Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 15.1.2004 ordered summoning of all the four accused for offence under section 138 of the Act. However, the revision petition filed by Parveen (respondent herein) has been allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 3.7.2008 and summoning order qua respondent Parveen (respondent herein) had been quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Except that the respondent is Director of the Society, there is no allegation against the respondent in the impugned complaint. However, Society does not have a Director. Vide order dated 8.12.2008 of this Court, the petitioner was directed to place on record documents to show duty and liability of the Director. However, no such material has been placed on record. Learned Sessions court has also observed that there is no document on record to depict that respondent herein is Director of the Society. On the other hand, the cheque in question was signed by Khushal Singh and Balbir Singh as President-cum-Chairman and General Secretary respectively of the Society. There is also no averment in the criminal complaint lodged by the petitioner that the respondent was incharge of or responsible to the Society for the conduct of the business of the Society. Ingredients of section 141 of the Act are also not satisfied so as to bring the respondent within the net of section 138 read with section 141 of the Act. Respondent is also not signatory to the cheque in question. Criminal Revision No. 2276 of 2008 -3- In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the instant revision petition which is dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 20, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'