IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4651 OF 2010 Mrs. Indu J. Agarwal .....Applicant V/S. 1. Shah Enterprises 2. The State of Maharashtra .....Respondents Mr. Rajendra Rathod i/by. O.A. Siddiqui, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Yusuf Iqbal Yusuf a/w. Neville Majra i/by. Yusuf & Associates, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 10th August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. By this application, the accused in C.C.No. 443/SS/2010 filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act seeks quashing of the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process against the applicant. The applicant is arrayed as accused in the complaint as Director of accused no.3-Pooja Iron and Steel Private Limited. The applicant claims that on the date of the transaction in respect of which the cheque in question had been issued, she was no more the Director of the Company. She had resigned as Director on 5th October, 2009. The second contention taken up by the applicant is that the Court at Mumbai has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The applicant relies upon her application in Form No.32 as evidence of her dissociation with accused no.3-Company. She claims that her resignation had been accepted by the Company by passing the necessary Resolution on the same day as the application. However, the respondent-the original complainant points out that within a year thereafter i.e. on 19th April, 2010 the applicant had filed an application for bail in another proceedings in her capacity as Director of the same Company. In that application, it is not disputed by her that she is the Director of the Company. Infact, the application proceeds as if she is the Director of the Company. In the circumstance, production of Form No.32 alone is not sufficient to hold that the applicant was no more concerned with the Company at the time of occurrence of the cause of action. As regards the jurisdiction of the Court at Bombay, the learned Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the cheque had been received at Bombay. It was presented for payment at Bombay and had been dishonoured at Bombay. Therefore, there can be no substance in the dispute raised as regards the jurisdiction of the trial Court also. Hence, the application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]