4 22-29 oh 17.o2.20rr Present: Mr. S. Nandakumsr: Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma and Ms. Seema Shukla. Advs. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. Crl. M.A. Nos. 1891/2O11. 1893/2011. 1895/2011, 1897/2011, La99|2OLL. L9OLI2OLL. L9O3|2OLL and, L9L2|2OLL (exemptionl Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of. + Crl. M.C. Nos. 49L-497IZOLL and, 5O2|2OLL * Petitioner seeks quashing of complaint cases filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Acf'). It is categorically stated in ttre complaint that petitioner, being Director of respondent No. 2, was engaged in day-to-day aJfairs of the company. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner was one of the Directors of the respondent No. 2, however, he was not looking after the affairs of respondent No. 2's office at Delhi. He was managing the affairs of company's Bangalore office. Cheques had been issued from Delhi office. Thus he was not liable for prosecution under Section I4L of Signing Date:14.08.2024 17:11:15 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified > the Act for the alleged offence committed by the company. His second limb of argument is that the petitioner had resigned on 25th February, 2009, that is, before filing of this complaint, thus, could not have been prosecuted. A categorical statement has also been made in the complaints that petitioner was looking afLer day-to-day affairs of the company. As per the petitioner, he had been managing the affairs of Bangalore office of the company. The allegations and counter- allegations on this point can be resolved only after trial. At best, the plea taken by the petitioner can be said to be his defense, which has to be proved during tial. As regards plea of resignation of the petitioner in the month of February, 2OO9 is concerned, not only the. cheques had been issued and dishonored but even statutory notice demanding the payment involved in the cheques was issued in the month of January , 2OOg, that is, much prior to the petitioner resigning from the company. For the foregoing reasons, petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing of the complaints. Petitions are dismissed. 3 Crl. M.A. Nos. t89O|2OLL, L892l2OLl. t894l2Ott, L896|2OLL. L898|2OLL, L9OOl2OLt, L9O2|2OLL and L9LLI2OLL lstayl Disposed of as infructuous. NVa- e.KpetHAK, J. FEBRUARY 17, ?OLL rb