In support appointment letter dated 15.7.2000 is enclosed as per which petitioner was appointed as Director Production.
The status of the accused No.
2 to 6 for a sum of Rs.
3 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.
It was sought to be represented through Director s Chairman Managing Director, Proprietor s , Incharge s .
challenging these summoning orders accused No.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 21.10.2001, which is also produced by the petitioner, he was asked to head the marketing department and was given the designation Director Marketing.
So were the other respondents.
Appellant herein was also described in similar capacity viz.
1 was number disclosed in the array of the accused persons.
In this capacity he was to be responsible for entire production, including machine selection as well as labour, process and material management.
Appellant before us was arrayed as accused No.
The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons on the other accused persons relying or on the basis of the averments made in the said companyplaint petition filed by the respondent herein.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
In the companyplaint petition, however, it was alleged The companyplainant is a partnership duly registered with the Registrar of firms at Delhi, and Mohit Gupta is one of its partner and duly authorized and empowered to file this companyplaint for and on behalf of the companyplainant.
The said companyplaint petition was filed for trying the accused persons named therein for companymission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a cheque dated 15.8.2002 was issued by the accused Nos.
2 lacs drawn at Canara Bank which on presentation was dishonored and the accused despite numberice, did number pay the said amount.
An application filed by the appellant herein for quashing the summons issued to him in an application filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed stating After the pre summoning evidence was recorded the learned MM found that prima facie case was made out against all the accused persons and, therefore, summoned these accused.
4211 of 2006 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
485 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
3 in the Complaint Petition filed by the first respondent herein, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi which was registered as a Complaint Case No.
379/1/2003.
