2015 (9) TMI 1672 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - summon of order - the present petitioner was summoned to face trial on the basis of summoning order - HELD THAT - The petitioner had resigned from the Board of Directors of the Company on 1.4.2013; her resignation was duly accepted in the Board meeting on 1.4.2013 itself, and required information was sent on Form 32 Annexure P/6 to the Registrar, the petitioner ceased to be Director of Company on 1.4.2013. More so, she is not the signatory to the cheque. The alleged cheque is dated 13.04.2013 and was returned dishonoured on 10.7.2013. Thus, on the date of issuance of cheque, the petitioner was not the Director PARKASH SOM 2015.09.24 15 45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document of the Company. More so, she was not the signatory to the cheque in question. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of Criminal Complaint - Liability of a resigned Director for a dishonored cheque issued by the Company.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 420 of the IPC. The petitioner, a former Director of the Company, argued that she had resigned from the Board of Directors before the issuance of the dishonored cheque and thus should not be held responsible for the company's actions. The petitioner contended that she was not involved in the affairs of the Company post-resignation and did not sign the cheque in question. The petitioner relied on judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support her plea, emphasizing that a resigned Director cannot be held liable for company obligations.

The Court considered the submissions and facts presented, noting that the petitioner had resigned from the Board of Directors before the cheque issuance, and her resignation was duly accepted and notified to the Registrar of Companies. The Court observed that the petitioner was not a signatory to the dishonored cheque dated before her resignation. Citing precedents like Gurmala Sales Private Ltd. Vs. Anu Mehta and others, the Court concluded that the complaint against the petitioner was not maintainable. The Court criticized the trial Magistrate for overlooking these crucial facts while issuing the summoning order.

As a result of the analysis, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the criminal complaint and summoning order against the petitioner. All subsequent proceedings related to the complaint were also terminated specifically concerning the petitioner.