IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-35663 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: October 18, 2011 Renu Mehta .....Petitioner Versus Kapil Talwar ... ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:-Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Akshay Bhan ,Advocate for petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH (Oral). The present petition is for quashing of complaint No.274/2, dated 28-4-2010, Annexure P-4 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by respondent Kapil Talwar and the summoning order dated 28-4-2010, Annexure P-5, issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the cheque issued in favour of respondent Kapil Talwar is dated 23-9-2009, Annexure P-3, and the said cheque as per the complaint has been issued by accused No.2 i.e. Shri Vikram Vyas. He contends that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.4 in the complaint in the capacity of a Director of accused No.1. i.e. Active Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. On the date when the cheque was issued the petitioner was not a Director of the company. She was inducted as Director of M/s Active Knitwears Pvt. Ltd on 1-3-2010 and in support of this contention reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner to Form-32, Annexure P-2 giving particulars of appointment of Managing Director, Directors, Manager and Secretary of the company as per provisions contained under the Companies Act 1956. He also contends that on the date when the cheque was issued the petitioner cannot be held liable for any act of the company as she only come into picture on 1-3-2010. On this basis, he prays for quashing of the complaint and setting aside the order dated 28.4.2010, Annexure P-5 vide which petitioner has been summoned. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent, but despite service respondent has chosen not to put in appearance in the Court and contest the claim made by petitioner in this petition. I have heard, the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the Court. The claim made by the petitioner is based on documents which have not been disputed. The cheque for an amount of `.1,37,053/- was issued on 23.9.2009. On the said date petitioner was not a Director of the company. She was thus not concerned with the liabilities or working of the company i.e. M/s Active Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. and she only come into picture on her induction as a Director on 1.3.2010 as it is apparent from Annexure P-2 i.e. Form-32. In view of these facts, present complaint qua the petitioner and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom cannot sustain qua the petitioner. Accordingly the present petition is allowed. Complaint No.274/2, dated 28-4-2010, Annexure P-4 under Section 138 of the Nagotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioner. This obviously means that summoning order dated 28.4.2010, Annexure P-5 qua petitioner also stands quashed. October 18,2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) aarti JUDGE