Delhi District Court
Astha Khetan vs State And Anr on 9 January, 2026
DLND010063702024 Page 1 of 24
Cr Revision No. 421/2024
Astha Khetan
Vs.
State & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 421/2024
In the matter of :-
Astha Khetan
D/o Sh. Anurag Gupta,
R/o (a) A-35, Sector-17A, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh-201301
(b) C-123, Sector-50, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh-201301
.....Petitioner
(represented by Ld. Counsel Ms. Isha Shukla)
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Through
SHO concerned,
PS Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110058
.....Respondent No. 1
(represented by Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Mukul Kumar)
2. Indiabulls Distribution Services Ltd.
Registered Office at:
M-62 & 63, First floor, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Narender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Pitambar Lal
Office address: M-62 & 63, First floor,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
.....Respondent No. 2
(represented by Ld. Counsel Sh. S. Qamar)
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.09
LALER 17:44:25 +0530
DLND010063702024 Page 2 of 24
Cr Revision No. 421/2024
Astha Khetan
Vs.
State & Anr.
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 BNSS
Date of institution : 07.08.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 16.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 09.01.2026
[Presiding Officer was on leave for substantial period due to family
exigency in the month of October, November and December, 2025]
JUDGMENT
1) Introduction The present revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 to 400 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Ms. Padma Landol, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Digital Court-03, Patiala House Court, Delhi in CC NI Act Case No. 6545/2022 titled "Indiabulls Distribution Services Ltd. vs. MKHS Housing LLP & Ors." whereby the petitioner/revisionist, Accused No. 3, was summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The petitioner has also filed applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition and seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the revision petition, it is necessary to first decide these preliminary applications.
SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.09
LALER 17:44:38 +0530
DLND010063702024 Page 3 of 24
Cr Revision No. 421/2024
Astha Khetan
Vs.
State & Anr.
2) Application for Condonation of Delay
a) The petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition. The impugned order dated 02.12.2022 summoned the petitioner as Accused No. 3 in the complaint case. The revision petition was filed on 10.06.2024, resulting in a delay of 489 days.
b) The petitioner contends that she entered appearance on 28.07.2023, which was the first date of hearing, but did not receive a copy of the complaint despite repeated requests. The petitioner states that on 04.12.2023, the counsel raised concerns regarding non-receipt of the complaint copy, and the court directed the complainant to supply the same, but compliance was not made. The petitioner further submits that the complete copy of the complaint was ultimately supplied on 20.03.2024, and the limitation period should be computed from this date of knowledge.
c) The explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay lacks merit and cannot be accepted. The petitioner was summoned by the trial court pursu ant to the impugned order dated 02.12.2022, and entered appearance on 28.07.2023, however, the revision was filed as late as on 10.06.2024. Moreover, even accepting the petitioner's contention that the complete copy of the complaint was received on 20.03.2024, the revision petition was filed only on 10.06.2024, after a further delay of approximately two and a half months.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:44:46 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 4 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
d) The petitioner has not provided any satisfactory explanation for this inordinate delay. The principle of limitation is founded on public policy, which requires that there must be an end to litigation. The alleged non- supply of the complaint copy, even if accepted, does not justify such an extraordinary delay in challenging the summoning order. The petitioner could have obtained the necessary documents through proper legal channels or moved appropriate applications before the trial court.
e) However, in the interest of justice and to avoid technical dismissal of the petition without examining its merits, the delay is condoned subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed with direction to pay the costs.
3) Application for Exemption from Filing Certified Copy
a) The petitioner has also filed an application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order dated 02.12.2022. The petitioner states that an application for certified copy was filed on 28.08.2023, but despite several enquiries, the same could not be obtained, and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application on 08.07.2024.
b) Considering the facts and circumstances, the application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy is allowed.
SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.09
LALER 17:44:56 +0530
DLND010063702024 Page 5 of 24
Cr Revision No. 421/2024
Astha Khetan
Vs.
State & Anr.
4) Brief Facts
a) The complainant, M/s Indiabulls Distribution Services Ltd., is a company engaged in the business of distribution and marketing for real estate projects. The complainant alleged that Accused No. 1, MKHS Housing LLP (a limited liability partnership firm), and Accused Nos. 2 to 6, being its designated partners/authorized signatories, are engaged in the construction and development of a residential project named "Rain Forest"
in West Bengal, Kolkata.
b) According to the complaint, the accused persons required funds in the year 2021 for the construction and development of the project and requested the complainant to advance a refundable Inter-Corporate Deposit on certain terms and conditions as per an Inter-Corporate Deposit Agreement dated 23.02.2021 executed at Kolkata. As per the agreement, the complainant advanced the deposit to the accused, which was to be repayable on or before 23.02.2022.
c) The complainant alleged that the accused persons No. 3 and 4 signed and issued a Demand Promissory Note on behalf of themselves and the other accused persons for the value received together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum. Further, Accused No. 2, as authorized signatory, signed and issued four post-dated cheques, each for Rs. 25,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only), bearing cheque numbers 998241, 998242, 998243, and 998244, dated 22.02.2022, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Kolkata.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:45:05 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 6 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
d) The complainant presented cheque bearing No. 998241 and 998242 dated 22.02.2022 on 28.02.2022, but the same were returned unpaid with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". The complainant again presented the cheques on 19.04.2022, but they were again returned unpaid with the same remarks on 20.04.2022.
e) The complainant issued legal notices dated 17.05.2022, which were sent on 18.05.2022 through Speed Post to the accused persons, and the notices were duly served on 20.05.2022, 21.05.2022, and 25.05.2022. Despite service of the legal notices, the accused persons failed to make payment of the cheque amounts. Consequently, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
f) Initially, the complaint was filed naming six accused persons. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application for amendment of the complaint along with amended complaint and amended memo of parties, which was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
5) Impugned Order The impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Digital Court-03, Patiala House Court, Delhi, reads as follows:
"Present: Sh. S. Qamar, Ld. counsel for the complainant. Ld. counsel for the complainant has filed an application for amendment of complaint along with amended complaint and amended PSE affidavit on the e- mail ID of the court. Same be taken on record.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:45:14 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 7 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
Application perused and allowed.
Ld. counsel for the complainant has also filed amended memo of parties on the e-mail ID of the court. Same be taken on record. Ld. counsel for the complainant argues that proposed accused no. 2 and 3 are signatories to the agreement and promissory note in question and proposed accused no. 3 is also the signatory to the cheques in dispute. Heard and considered.
Ahlmad of the Court intimates that he has received the original case documents from the complainant. He is directed to keep the same in his safe custody.
COGNIZANCE AND SUMMONING ORDER
1. This is a complaint filed for offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act. Complaint, affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents perused. I take cognizance of the said offence.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.' (2014) 11 SCC 790, has given discretion to the Magistrate to rely on the complaint, documents annexed and the affidavit submitted by complainant in deciding whether or not to issue process u/s. 200 CrPC and it is not mandatory to examine upon oath the complainant or its witnesses in order to decide the same. Upon considering the instant complaint, documents produced and verification in the form of affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused for offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act. Accused no. 1 is prima facie responsible, being the drawer of the cheque and accused no. 3 is also prima facie responsible being a partner of the accused No. 1 LLP as well as signatory to the cheques in dispute. Accused No. 2 is also prima facie responsible being a partner who is allegedly responsible and Incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the LLP along with accused no. 3. Accused no. 2 and 3 are also stated to be involved in the transaction in question being the signatories to the agreement and promissory note in question.
3. In terms of inquiry conducted under Section 202 CrPC, all the statutory requirements have been complied with. The complaint is filed within the period of limitation. I am also prima facie satisfied that the offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, issue summons against the accused No. 1, 2 and 3 on PF/RC/Approved Courier. Service be also effected on the email and whatsApp message(s), as provided by the complainant and further subject SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:45:21 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 8 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
to filing of report of service. Necessary particulars be filed on affidavit within 7 days. For facilitation of the same, dasti summons are permitted. The process server is directed to serve the summons by way of affixation in terms of Sec. 65 CrPC, if premises found closed or same could not be served personally or on any adult male member.
4. As per the guidelines laid down in 'Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H', AIR 2010 (SC) 1907, Ahlmad is directed to make a mention on the summons issued against the accused (by adding separate sheet, if required) that 'accused can make an application for compounding of the offence at the first and second hearing of the case and if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused.'
5. Ahlmad is also directed to mention the official email id and video conferencing link of this Court on the summons. Complainant is directed to file PF and take steps within 07 days including providing copy(ies) of complaint otherwise the complaint may be dismissed u/s 204(4) Cr.P.C. The complainant is also apprised of the fact that at the time of filing 1st PF, he is required to mandatorily fill the Meta Deta form. Put up for report/appearance of accused and further proceedings on 29.03.2023.
PA is directed to do updation of the case and upload the order, as per rules."
(emphasis supplied)
6) Grounds of Revision The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds, inter alia:
a) The petitioner was a designated partner of MKHS Housing LLP only from the period 2019 to 2022 and had no working knowledge of the day-to-day events of the partnership firm.
b) The petitioner was initially not made a party to the complaint, and her role was elaborated only through an amendment to the complaint.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:45:29 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 9 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
c) The dishonored cheques dated 22.02.2022 did not bear the signatures of the petitioner.
d) The petitioner did not have signing authority over the cheques in question.
e) The respondent maliciously made the petitioner a party to the proceedings to harass her, despite knowing that the petitioner had no knowledge of the dishonored cheques.
f) Directors/partners of a company/partnership firm cannot be expected to be aware of day-to-day events and hence cannot be made party in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
g) The petitioner resigned from her post as designated partner in MKHS Housing LLP on 16.08.2022, and hence no longer had any concern or knowledge with the ongoing dealings or transactions of the partnership firm.
h) Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Viren Shah v. Redington (India) Limited (2024 INSC 111), which held that a director who has resigned from such post cannot be held liable for failure in realization of cheques issued by the company.
7) Findings on the Grounds of Revision Timeline of Events
a) A careful examination of the record reveals the following crucial timeline:
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:45:36 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 10 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
(1) 23.02.2021: Inter-Corporate Deposit Agreement was executed between the complainant and the accused persons, wherein the petitioner (Accused No. 3) signed as Director of Focus Tools Pvt. Ltd., which was a partner in MKHS Housing LLP. (2) 22.02.2022: The cheques in question bearing numbers 998241, 998242, 998243, and 998244, each for Rs. 25,00,000/-, were dated and allegedly issued.
(3) 28.02.2022: The cheques bearing numbers 998241 and 998242 were first presented and returned unpaid with the remarks "Funds Insufficient".
(4) 19.04.2022 and 20.04.2022: The cheques were presented again and returned unpaid with the same remarks.
(5) 17.05.2022 and 18.05.2022: Legal notices were prepared and sent to the accused persons.
(6) 16.08.2022: The petitioner resigned from her position as designated partner in MKHS Housing LLP (As mentioned in Annexure 2- Resignation Letter).
(7) 02.12.2022: The impugned summoning order was passed.
This chronology is of utmost significance in deciding the present revision petition.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.09
LALER 17:45:45 +0530
DLND010063702024 Page 11 of 24
Cr Revision No. 421/2024
Astha Khetan
Vs.
State & Anr.
8) Petitioner's Status at the Material Time
a) The most crucial and determinative fact emerging from the record is that the petitioner resigned from her position as designated partner in MKHS Housing LLP on 16.08.2022. A perusal of the resignation letter annexed as Annexure-2 to the revision petition clearly establishes that the petitioner gave notice of her intention to resign as a designated partner with immediate effect on 16.08.2022.
b) However, this resignation was after the cheques in question dated 22.02.2022 were issued and dishonored. When the cheques dated 22.02.2022 were issued, the petitioner was admittedly a partner in the partnership firm MKHS Housing LLP. This is a fact that cannot be disputed and is borne out from the record filed by petitioner herself.
c) The petitioner's argument that she resigned in 2022 and therefore should not be held liable is misconceived and does not advance her case. The liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises at the time when the cheque is issued and when the transaction takes place, not at the time when the summoning order is passed. The material date for determining liability is the date when the cheque was issued and when it was dishonored.
d) Since the petitioner was a partner in the firm on 22.02.2022 when the cheques were issued, she was very much connected with the transaction and the affairs of the partnership firm at the relevant time. Her subsequent resignation in August 2022, which was several months after the cheques SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:45:53 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 12 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
were dishonored, does not absolve her of liability for transactions that occurred during her tenure as a partner.
9) Petitioner as Signatory to Agreement and Promissory Note
a) The impugned order specifically records that the petitioner (Accused No.
3) is a signatory to the agreement and promissory note in question. This finding is based on the documents produced before the learned Magistrate. The operative portion of the impugned order clearly states: "Accused no. 2 and 3 are also stated to be involved in the transaction in question being the signatories to the agreement and promissory note in question".
b) A perusal of the Supplemental Agreement to the LLP Agreement dated 06.09.2019 (Annexure-4 to the revision petition) shows that Ms. Aastha Khetan, daughter of Sri Anurag Gupta, was inducted as a Director of Focus Tools Private Limited, which became a partner (New Partner No. 1) in MKHS Housing LLP. The agreement clearly bears her signature as "Director" of Focus Tools Pvt. Ltd..
c) The fact that the petitioner is a signatory to the agreement and promissory note is of paramount importance. This fact alone is sufficient for the purpose of summoning under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner's signature on these documents demonstrates her active involvement in the transaction in question. She was not a mere name lender or a passive partner who had no knowledge of the affairs of the firm.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:46:03 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 13 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
d) By signing the agreement and promissory note, the petitioner made herself personally liable for the obligations undertaken therein. She cannot now turn around and contend that she had no knowledge of the transactions or that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the firm. Her act of signing the agreement and promissory note shows her conscious participation in the transaction and her awareness of the financial dealings between the complainant and the partnership firm.
e) The promissory note was executed as security for the Inter-Corporate Deposit advanced by the complainant. By signing the promissory note, the petitioner acknowledged the debt and promised to repay the same. This creates a prima facie case against her for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
10) Petitioner's Contentions on Cheque Signatures
a) The petitioner contends that the dishonored cheques did not bear her signatures and that she did not have signing authority over the cheques in question. However, this contention is wholly misconceived and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the law relating to liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the context of partnership firms.
b) Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with offences by companies and makes every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, liable for the offence. While SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:46:11 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 14 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
Section 141 specifically deals with companies, the principles enunciated therein have been extended by courts to partnership firms as well.
c) The law is well-settled that in the case of a partnership firm, it is not necessary that the partner accused must be a signatory to the cheque. What is required to be established is that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm at the material time. If the partner is shown to be actively involved in the affairs of the firm and is a signatory to the agreement and promissory note in connection with the transaction, it is sufficient to fasten liability under Section 138.
d) In the present case, the fact remains that the petitioner was a signatory to the agreement dated 23.02.2021 and the promissory note, which were executed in connection with the very transaction for which the cheques were issued. This clearly establishes her involvement in the transaction and her responsibility for the business of the firm.
e) At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate is not required to conduct a mini-trial or to appreciate the evidence in detail. If the allegations in the complaint and the documents annexed thereto disclose the commission of an offence, the Magistrate is duty-bound to issue summons.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:46:23 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 15 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
11) Active Involvement in Transaction
a) The petitioner's contention that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm and had no working knowledge of the events is belied by the record. The Supplemental Agreement to the LLP Agreement dated 06.09.2019 clearly shows that Focus Tools Private Limited, of which the petitioner was a Director, was inducted as "New Partner No. 1" in MKHS Housing LLP.
b) The agreement records that the Present LLP had executed various agreements with the complainant, Indiabulls Distribution Services Limited, for raising funds for the development of the project. The New Partner No. 1 (Focus Tools Pvt. Ltd., represented by the petitioner) was inducted into the partnership with full knowledge of these existing obligations and liabilities.
c) Clause 5 of the Supplemental Agreement deals with "Allocation of Liability" and specifically provides that the New Partner No. 1 shall assume and pay all liabilities arising out of and in connection with execution of the project. Clause 5.2 enumerates various liabilities, including liabilities arising out of the obligation to refund the security deposit received from Indiabulls Distribution Services Limited.
d) By signing this agreement as Director of New Partner No. 1, the petitioner accepted responsibility for the liabilities of the partnership firm, including the liabilities towards the complainant. She cannot now contend that she SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:46:31 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 16 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
had no knowledge of the transactions or that she was not involved in the business affairs of the firm.
e) Furthermore, the petitioner was appointed as a "Designated Partner" of MKHS Housing LLP. Clause 6 of the Supplemental Agreement specifically provides that the designated partners of the LLP shall include "Aastha Khetan" (DPIN 02311816) as nominee of the New Partner No. 1. A designated partner has greater responsibilities and obligations under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. The petitioner, being a designated partner, cannot take shelter under the plea that she was unaware of the financial transactions of the firm.
f) The fact that the petitioner was actively involved in the transaction is further evidenced by her signature on the promissory note. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money. By signing the promissory note, the petitioner made a commitment to repay the debt. This is not the act of a person who is ignorant of the financial affairs of the firm or who is not involved in its business transactions.
12) Material Date for Determining Liability
a) The petitioner's reliance on her resignation dated 16.08.2022 is misplaced.
The material date for determining liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the date when the cheque was issued and SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:46:40 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 17 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
when the cause of action arose, not the date when the complaint was filed or when the summoning order was passed.
b) In the present case, the cheques in question are dated 22.02.2022. These cheques were presented on 28.02.2022 and again on 19.04.2022, but were dishonored on both occasions. The cause of action for the offence under Section 138 arose when the cheques were dishonored and the accused persons failed to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the legal notice.
c) The legal notices were sent on 18.05.2022 and were served on 20.05.2022, 21.05.2022, and 25.05.2022. Even taking the latest date of service, i.e., 25.05.2022, the 15-day period for making payment would have expired by approximately 09.06.2022.
d) The petitioner resigned from her position as designated partner only on 16.08.2022, which was more than two months after the cause of action had already arisen. At the time when the cheque was issued (22.02.2022), when it was dishonored (28.02.2022 and 20.04.2022), when the legal notice was served (20.05.2022 to 25.05.2022), and when the statutory period for making payment expired (approximately 09.06.2022), the petitioner was very much a designated partner in MKHS Housing LLP.
e) It is a well-established principle of law that the liability of a partner/director under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be determined with reference to the date when the offence was committed, not with reference to a subsequent date. The offence under SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:46:47 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 18 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
Section 138 is complete when the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment within 15 days of receipt of the legal notice.
f) In the present case, the offence, if any, was complete by June 2022, which was well before the petitioner resigned on 16.08.2022. The petitioner's resignation, which came after the commission of the alleged offence, does not absolve her of criminal liability.
13) Judicial Precedents Cited by Petitioner
a) The petitioner has placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Viren Shah v. Redington (India) Limited (2024 INSC 111) to contend that a director who has resigned cannot be held liable for failure in realization of cheques issued by the company. However, this reliance is wholly misplaced and the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts.
b) In Rajesh Viren Shah's case, the director had resigned before the cheque was issued and before the transaction took place. The Supreme Court held that such a director cannot be held liable for transactions that occurred after his resignation. This is in consonance with the principle that liability under Section 141 attaches only to persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time when the offence was committed.
c) However, in the present case, the factual matrix is entirely different. Here, the petitioner was very much a designated partner in the firm when the SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:46:56 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 19 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
cheque dated 22.02.2022 was issued. She was a partner when the cheque was dishonored on 28.02.2022 and 20.04.2022. She was a partner when the legal notice was served in May 2022. She was a partner when the statutory period for making payment expired in June 2022. Her resignation came only in August 2022, which was after the commission of the alleged offence.
d) Thus, the ratio of Rajesh Viren Shah's case, which protects a resigned director/partner from liability for post-resignation transactions, has no application to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, the said judgment supports the complainant's case that the liability must be determined with reference to the date of the transaction and the date of commission of the offence.
e) In the present case, the petitioner was not a mere nominal partner. She was a designated partner who signed the agreement and the promissory note in connection with the very transaction for which the cheques were issued. This clearly establishes her active involvement in the transaction and her responsibility for the conduct of the business of the firm. Therefore, the principles laid down in these judgments are fully satisfied in the present case.
14) Summoning Order Cannot Be Faulted
a) At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply a prima facie test. The Magistrate must examine whether the allegations in the SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:47:04 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 20 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
complaint and the documents annexed thereto, if taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate is not required to conduct a detailed enquiry or to appreciate the evidence as if conducting a trial.
b) In the landmark judgment in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Supreme Court held that the power to issue process should be exercised with great care and caution, but once it is found that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence, the Magistrate must issue process.
c) In the present case, the learned Magistrate has carefully examined the complaint, the affidavit of evidence, and the documents annexed thereto. The learned Magistrate has recorded specific findings that:
i) Accused No. 1 (MKHS Housing LLP) is prima facie responsible, being the drawer of the cheque.
ii) Accused No. 3 (the petitioner) is prima facie responsible being a partner of the LLP as well as signatory to the cheques in dispute.
iii) Accused No. 2 is prima facie responsible being a partner who is allegedly responsible and in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the LLP along with Accused No. 3.
iv) Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be involved in the transaction in question being the signatories to the agreement and promissory note in question.
SAURABH Digitally by SAURABH signed PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:47:15 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 21 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
d) These findings are based on the material placed before the learned Magistrate and disclose a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner signed the agreement and promissory note is itself sufficient to establish her prima facie involvement in the transaction. This, coupled with the fact that she was a designated partner in the firm when the cheque was issued, dishonored, and when the cause of action arose, makes out a clear case for her being summoned to face trial.
e) The summoning order is a well-reasoned order that has considered the relevant facts and applied the correct legal principles.
f) There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order that would warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
15) Selective Summoning
a) It is pertinent to note that although the complainant named six accused persons in the complaint, the learned Magistrate summoned only three accused persons, namely, Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3. This shows that the learned Magistrate applied her judicial mind to the material on record and summoned only those persons against whom a prima facie case was made out.
b) The fact that Accused Nos. 4, 5, and 6 were not summoned demonstrates that the learned Magistrate did not issue summons mechanically or routinely. The learned Magistrate examined the role of each proposed Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH PARTAP SINGH PARTAP LALER SINGH Date:
LALER 2026.01.09 17:47:23 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 22 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
accused and summoned only those persons who were found to be prima facie responsible for the alleged offence.
c) The petitioner (Accused No. 3) was summoned because of her specific role as a signatory to the agreement and promissory note and as a designated partner of the firm. Her summoning was not an act of harassment or malicious prosecution, as alleged, but was based on cogent material showing her involvement in the transaction.
d) The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity on this count either.
16) Conclusion
a) After careful consideration of the entire material on record, the submissions advanced, and the legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
b) The material facts that emerge from the record are clear and unambiguous:
i) The cheques in question are dated 22.02.2022.
ii) The petitioner resigned from the partnership only on 16.08.2022.
iii) When the cheques dated 22.02.2022 were issued, the petitioner was admittedly a designated partner in MKHS Housing LLP.
SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
SINGH Date: 2026.01.09
LALER 17:47:31 +0530
DLND010063702024 Page 23 of 24
Cr Revision No. 421/2024
Astha Khetan
Vs.
State & Anr.
iv) The petitioner is a signatory to the agreement and promissory note executed in connection with the transaction for which the cheques were issued.
v) This fact has been specifically recorded in the impugned order.
vi) The fact that the petitioner was a designated partner in the firm when the cheque was issued is by itself sufficient for the purpose of summoning her to face trial. The fact that she is a signatory to the agreement and promissory note further strengthens the case against her.
Her signature on these documents shows that she was actively involved in the transaction in question while being a partner in the partnership firm.
vii) The summoning order cannot be faulted with. The learned Magistrate has applied the correct legal principles and has recorded findings based on the material on record. The order is a well-reasoned order that discloses proper application of judicial mind.
viii) It may be noted that though the complainant named six accused persons, only three were summoned by the learned Magistrate. This shows that the learned Magistrate examined the role of each proposed accused carefully and summoned only those persons against whom a prima facie case was made out. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity.
ix) The petitioner's reliance on judgments relating to resigned directors/partners is misplaced because those judgments deal with SAURABH Digitally signed by SAURABH PARTAP PARTAP SINGH LALER SINGH Date: 2026.01.09 LALER 17:47:40 +0530 DLND010063702024 Page 24 of 24 Cr Revision No. 421/2024 Astha Khetan Vs. State & Anr.
situations where the resignation occurred before the transaction or before the commission of the offence. In the present case, the petitioner was very much a partner when the transaction took place, when the cheque was issued, and when the offence was allegedly committed. Her subsequent resignation does not absolve her of criminal liability.
17) For all these reasons, the revision petition is dismissed. The applications for condonation of delay and exemption from filing certified copy are disposed of as indicated above. The summoning order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is upheld.
18) Costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) are imposed on the petitioner for filing this frivolous revision petition. The costs shall be paid to the complainant within four weeks from today before Ld. Trial Court.
19) The costs imposed under the application for condonation of delay (Rs. 5,000/-) shall be paid to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
20) A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Digital Court-03, Patiala House Court, Delhi, for information and compliance. TCR, if any, be sent back.
21) File be consigned to Record Room.
SAURABH Digitally signed by
Announced in the open Court PARTAP
SAURABH
PARTAP SINGH
LALER
on 09th of January 2026 SINGH
LALER
Date: 2026.01.09
17:47:51 +0530
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts Delhi
09.01.2026