Rakhi Randhir Aser vs Kei Industries Ltd.

$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of Decision: 1 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010893982024
+ CRL.M.C. 9603/2024
RAKHI RANDHIR ASER .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vanita Tiwari, Advocate.
versus
KEI INDUSTRIES LTD. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Kohli, Ms. Apoorva
Agarwal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)

CRL.M.A. 10820/2026 & CRL.M.A. 11830-11831/2026
1. The abovesaid petition was dismissed in default on 24.02.2026.
2. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the delay is, hereby,
condoned and the petition is restored to its original number and position.
3. Applications stand disposed of.
4. Since parties are present in Court, the petition has been taken up today.
CRL.M.C. 9603/2024

5. Present petition seeks quashing of summoning order dated 18.07.2019
by invoking Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS).
6. When the present petition was taken up by the learned Predecessor
Bench on 06.12.2024, while recording the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, notice was issued to the respondent and the
proceedings qua the petitioner herein were also directed to be stayed.
7. According to the averments appearing in the petition, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9603/2024 1

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:02.09.2026
09:59:06

seeks quashing for the reason that there is no specific allegation to indict her
and that in the entire complaint, no specific role has been ascribed to her.
8. There are two things which are very important and significant in the
present context.
9. Let me refer to those, one by one.
10. Copy of the complaint in question has been placed on record and as per
complainant-M/S KEI Industries Ltd., the cheque in question had been issued
by the accused company which is a partnership firm. The name of the accused
Company is M/S R.D. Enterprises and its two partners are Mr. Randhir
Dinesh Asher and his wife Ms. Rakhi Randhir Aser (petitioner herein).
11. Para 17 of the abovesaid complaint reads as under:-
“17. That the Accused No.1 is the Partnership Firm and accused No. 2
& 3 are the partners of Accused No. 1 Firm and are in charge of and
responsible for the day-to-day affairs and operations of the said
concern. The Accused No. 2 besides being partner of the said firm is
also the signatory of the said cheque and thus, are liable to be joined as
accused persons under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
along with Accuse No.1 firm. The Accused person is therefore liable to
be prosecuted for the offence as contemplated in Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.”

12. When the matter was taken up by learned Predecessor Bench and
interim order was passed in favour of petitioner, the submission of petitioner
was recorded and according to the submission made at that time, the
petitioner herein was claimed to be inactive partner of the firm and not
in-charge of its day-to-day affairs.
13. Learned counsel for respondent/complainant submits that the
complaint in question contains clear-cut averment which specifies and
described the role and involvement of the petitioner herein. He also submits
that for the reasons best known to the petitioner, a wrong submission was
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9603/2024 2

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:02.09.2026
09:59:06

made before this Court in order to earn compassion. He submits that there is
nothing on record which may indicate that the petitioner herein was inactive
partner. On the contrary and to make things worse, she is working partner of
the accused firm.
14. During course of the consideration, he has shown a Deed of
Reconstitution of the Partnership Firm and as per the abovesaid deed which
was executed on 20.06.2009, Mr. Randhir Aser and his wife -Ms. Rakhi
Randhir Aser, are described as working partners . It is also mentioned in such
deed that they are responsible for and entitled to carry out day-to-day
functioning of the partnership firm, provided that they do not commit any act,
to the detriment of the interest of the partnership. The profit sharing between
them is also in the proportion of 60:40, wherein 40% being the share of the
applicant.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner though, does not dispute the fact that
there is a Partnership Deed and that such deed also describes both of them as
working partners, submits that in the complaint, there is no allegation or
averment attributable to her. However, as already noticed above, the
petitioner has been alleged to in-charge of and responsible for the day-to-day
affairs and operations of the partnership firm in question.
16. Keeping in mind the specific averments made in the complaint as well
as the abovesaid Partnership Deed , there is nothing to infer abuse of process
of law, necessitating any interference by this Court by invoking its inherent
power.
17. On the contrary, the conduct of the petitioner does not seem to be above
board as the petitioner herself should have rather placed on record the copy of
the Partnership Deed in case she was of the view that she was not active
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9603/2024 3

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:02.09.2026
09:59:06

partner. A wrong submission before this Court was neither warranted nor
justifiable.
18. Be that as it may, in view of the above, this Court, does not find any
merit in the present petition.
19. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
20. Needless to say, the stay which had been granted by this Court on
06.12.2024, stands vacated.
21. However, it will be still open to the petitioner herein to demonstrate
before the learned Trial Court that at the relevant time, she was not in-charge
or concerned with the day-to-day affairs of the accused firm. We need to
emphasise that such question of fact, can be, even otherwise, appropriately
answered during the course of trial only.
22. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 /sw/sa
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 9603/2024 4

Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:02.09.2026
09:59:06