Judgment Mool Chand Garg, J. 1. This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner to add new grounds in support of his petition which has been filed in the year 2003 for quashing of summoning order in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The order sheet goes to show that at least for the last more than four hearings; the petitioner had been taking adjournments for filing the rejoinder. Even the costs was imposed upon the petitioner. This conduct of the petitioner is not appreciable, 2. In that view of the matter, this application cannot be entertained. The same is accordingly dismissed. Crl.M.(M) 2316/2003 3. In view of what has been stated above, the right to file the rejoinder also stands closed. 4. The only ground raised by the petitioner in this petition is that there are no allegations against the petitioner in the complaint filed by respondent No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, this averment is wrong because in paragraph 7 of the complaint it has been mentioned that after the dishonor of cheques, the complainant informed the company, its directors as well as the petitioner, who was the authorized signatory and had signed the cheques, which have been bounced. There is no dispute about this fact that the petitioner was the authorized signatory and signed the cheques in question. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that a notice was also served upon the petitioner informing her of the dishonor of cheque which was duly received. 6. In view of the aforesaid, if there is any defence available to the petitioner, she may take such defence while cross-examining the witnesses of the complainant and by leading her defence evidence. 7. The next submission made by the petitioner is that there is a compromise between the complainant and the M/s Savitri India Ltd./respondent No.2 in a Company court and therefore, the petitioner is no more liable for the dishonor of cheques. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Venkatesh Dutt v. M.S. Shoes East Limited, 2004 (72) DRJ 521 . 8. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Venkatesh Dutt v. M.S. Shoes East Limited, 2004 (72) DRJ 521 . 8. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.1 submits that the compromise which has been arrived at between the complainant and M/s Savitri India Limited/respondent No.2 was in respect where winding up proceedings initiated against M/s Savitri India Ltd. and where liability was to the tune of Rs. 46 lakhs and out of which only 6lakhs have been paid and therefore, it does not exonerate the liability of the Director as well as of the person, who has drawn the cheque. 9. It is well settled that the criminal liability and the civil liability co-exist together. Mere because some part payment has been made qua civil liability that too in a case where a company was under the threat of winding up will not exonerate the signatory of the cheque or the others who are responsible for the affairs of the accused company. 10. Thus, I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 11. Nothing stated herein will prevent the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant and to bring their defence on record which may be available to her in accordance with law. 12. Parties to appear before the trial court on the date fixed before the trial court. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Trial court record, if any be sent back forthwith.