1 WP.517-2011.sxw acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO. 517 OF 2011 Monica Ashutosh Sahani . .Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. Ashok Bhatia, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Kharge, A.P.P. for the State. Mr. M.K. Kocharekar, for Respondent No.2 ---- CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Kocharekar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Kharge, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2 The petitioner is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 1657/SS/2009 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, 2 WP.517-2011.sxw Borivali, Mumbai. The charge against the petitioner is under Sections 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has been served with the process issued by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of process. The petitioner has moved this court after having failed before the Sessions Court in the proceedings under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. 3 It is submitted: (i) that there are no averments against the petitioner in the complaint; (ii) that the petitioner had resigned from the Company on 22.10.2008; and (iii) that the cheque in question was issued on 2.4.2009. 4 Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not be held responsible for issuance of cheque dated 2.4.2009 as she had already resigned on 22.10.2008. 5 During the course of arguments, it was revealed that there is a copy of the resignation letter dated 22.10.2008. The Form-32 was submitted on-line by the Company on 7.4.2009 and the cheque in question was issued on 2.4.2009. The resignation letter and the Minutes are the 3 WP.517-2011.sxw internal documents of the Company. These documents are not public documents. There are clearcut averments against the petitioner that she was responsible for day-to-day business activities of the Company. Hence, the petitioner will have to face the trial, and will have to satisfy the Trial Court that she was not one of the Directors who was responsible for day-to-day business activities of the Company. As already stated, the resignation letter and the Minutes of the Company are not public documents. It will have to be proved before the Trial Court that the resignation letter was submitted on 22.10.2008 and that it was accepted by the Directors of the Company. The Minutes will have also to be proved in accordance with law. This Court cannot examine these documents as the contents of same are seriously disputed. 6 In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the Petition. The Petition is liable to be dismissed. Criminal Writ Petition No. 517 of 2011 is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 7 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court may be exempted. The petitioner is at liberty to move the Trial Court. The Trial 4 WP.517-2011.sxw Court may consider his prayer, keeping in mind whether her personal attendance is necessary. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)