9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has resigned on 4.7.2019. Since the issue remains the same, albeit the crime being different, it is deemed appropriate to obliterate the present proceedings following the order passed by this Court - petition allowed. - Criminal Petition No. 9600 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2022 - Maheshan Nagaprasanna , J. For the Appellant : Bharath Kumar V. , Advocate For the Respondents : Sushant Venkatesh Pai , Advocate ORDER Heard Sri. Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. Sushant Venkatesh Pai, appearing for the respondent. 2. This Court concerning the very same parties, has quashed the proceedings in Crl.P. No. 949 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le the other Director replied without indicating that the petitioner had resigned from the Directorship of the Company. The complainant initiates proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act arraigning the Directors of the Company as accused. The petitioner is accused No. 3. At that juncture, the petitioner knocks the doors of this Court in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner having resigned as Director of the Company cannot be hauled into these proceedings as he is neither the signatory to the cheque nor was present in the deliberations prior to issuance of the cheque, as he had resigned and would place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HARS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner in the capacity of being a Director of the Company M/s. Wardwiz India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had signed the agreement that was entered into between accused No. 1 and the respondent-complainant. The agreement was signed on 17.8.2018. Long after execution of the agreement to which the petitioner was signatory, the petitioner tenders his resignation as Director of the company with effect from 04.07.2019. This is accepted and notified in Form No. DIR-11 as per the proviso to Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 16 of the Companies (Appointment and Qual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the two parties where the Directors were involved in the act of issuance of those cheques therein. The role of an Ex-Director though in some terms is held in the case of N. RANGACHARI, much water has flown after the said judgment of the Apex Court, as the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in the case of HARSHENDRA KUMAR D. v. REBATILATA KOLEY AND OTHERS (2011)3 SCC 351 has clearly held that an Ex-Director cannot be hauled into criminal proceedings, particularly, for a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Apex Court holds as follows: 25. In our judgment, the above observations cannot be read to mean that in a criminal case where trial is yet to take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons or taki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant's resignation from the post of Director of the Company. Had these documents been considered by the High Court, it would have been apparent that the appellant has resigned much before the cheques were issued by the Company. 27. As noticed above, the appellant resigned from the post of Director on 2-3-2004. The dishonoured cheques were issued by the Company on 30-4-2004 i.e. much after the appellant had resigned from the post of Director of the Company. The acceptance of the appellant's resignation is duly reflected in the Resolution dated 2-3-2004. Then in the prescribed form (Form 32), the Company informed to the Registrar of Companies on 4-3-2004 about the appellant's resignation. It is not even the case of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observations made herein would bind or influence the proceedings pending against accused Nos. 1 and 2. IN CRL.P. No. 3259/2021: The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No. 132/2021 registered for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the reasons rendered in the companion petition Crl.P. No. 9492/2021, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 132/2021 pending on the file of XXV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stand quashed qua the petitioner. 3. Since the issue remains the same, albeit the crime being different, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the present proceedings following the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
