* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1238/2007 & Crl.M.A. No. 4322/2007 (stay) ANITA MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. versus APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNC ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN O R D E R % 16.12.2009 This is a petition for quashing the complaint filed by the petitioner and two others under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. A perusal of the complaint shows that certain cheques were issued to the complainant by accused No.1 M/s Larareil Exports Pvt. Ltd. The cheques, when presented to the bank, were dishonored on account of funds being insufficient in the account. After serving a notice of demand and on account of failure of the accused persons to pay the amount of cheques despite notice, this complaint was filed on the allegations that accused No.2 Mohan Soi and accused No. 3 Anita Malhotra were Directors of accused No.1 M/s Larareil Exports Pvt. Ltd. and were responsible to accused No.1 for conduct of its business and were In-charge of acts and deeds of the company and were also responsible to its day to day affairs, funding monies etc. It has been specifically alleged that they were In-charge of and responsible to accused No. 1 M/s Larareil Exports Pvt. Ltd. at the time offence was committed. The case of the petitioner is that though the cheques were of 1st June, 2004, she had resigned as a Director of accused No.1 w.e.f. 31st August, 1998. On last date of hearing, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to file certified copy of Form-32 which could have established the claim of the petitioner that she was not a Director of accused No.1, at the time offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was committed. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that Form-32 is not available in the record of the Registrar of Companies, the same having not been filed by the company. He has submitted that in the Annual Return dated 30th September, 1999, filed by accused No.1, the petitioner has not been shown as a Director of accused No.1. It is settled proposition of law that at this stage, the Court need not go into the defence that may be available to the accused and as to examine the matter solely from the point of view of the complainant. Form- 32 is the only authentic document, which could have established as to whether the petitioner was a Director of the company on a particular date or not. In the absence of Form-32, the question, as to whether the petitioner was a Director of accused No.1 on the date offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was committed or not, has become a disputed question of fact, which can be adjudicated upon only during trial. The Annual Return filed by the company is neither an admitted document nor a public document. Therefore, it is not permissible to look into this document and take a view of the question as to whether petitioner was a Director of accused No.1 at the relevant date or not. The complainant has already made the requisite allegations against the petitioner in para-4 of the complaint. Hence, at this stage no ground is made out for quashing the complaint filed against the petitioner. CRL.M.C. 1238/2007 stands disposed of. V.K. JAIN, J DECEMBER 16, 2009 Ag