IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3821 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 15, 2010 I.M.Vijayan ...........Petitioner Versus M/s Prime Impex ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Arun K.Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sumit Narang, Advocate for the respondent. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of complaint No. 175/2/07 dated 29.3.2007(Anneuxre P3) under Sections 138, 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short `the Act') read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short `IPC') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, Summoning Order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P4) with all consequential proceedings . The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had supplied the sports goods to the accused, i.e., knitted wears and sports wears as per their order on credit basis In this regard an amount of Rs. Crl. Misc. No. M-3821 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 12,50,000/- had become due against the accused. Accused, in order to discharge their liability, issued four cheques including cheque bearing Nos.934456 dated 9.11.2006 amounting to Rs.85,000/- and 929721 dated 2.11.2006 amounting to Rs. 18640/- , both drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd. GT Road Jalandhar Branch from their account No.42. On the assurance of the accused that all the cheques in question are good for value and would be honoured on its presentation, the said two cheques (929721 and 934456) were presented thrice for encashment but all the times vide memos dated 28.11.2006,22.1.2007 and 9.2.2007, were returned as dishonoured with the remarks `Funds Insufficient' Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, three complaints were filed against the petitioner and others by the respondent under Section 138 of the Act and Section 420 IPC Petitioner was earlier Director of Boxer Sports Goods Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short `the Company') and he had submitted his resignation vide Annexure P1 dated 5.10.2006. The said resignation was accepted vide Annexure P2 with effect from 16.10.2006 by the Registrar of the Companies. Hence, the petitioner has no concern with the Company. In one case, petitioner had approached this Court seeking quashing of the complaint and the said complaint was quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure P5). Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition. In Criminal Misc. No. M-7602 of 2008, filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the complaint dated 21.2.2007 under Sections 138 of the Act read with Section 420 IPC, it was held as under by' Crl. Misc. No. M-3821 of 2010 (O&M) -3- this Court on 10.11.2008, while allowing the petition:- “There is an averment in the petition that the petitioner resigned as a Director of the Company vide letter dated 5.10.2006 (Annexure P1). The factum thereof came to be noticed by the Registrar of Companies vide certification dated 10.7.2007. (“Hereby confirmed that the above mentioned Director is not associated with the company with effect from 16.10.2006. (DD/MM/YYYY) due to resignation.”). The impugned cheque is alleged to have been issued on 28.11.2006. In the light of that factual position as well, the liability of the petitioner cannot be upheld as he had ceased to be a Director of the company with effect from 16.10.2006. In the light of the fore-going discussion, it is apparent that allowing complaint to proceed would amount to an abuse of process of Court. The complaint (Annexure P3) and also the summoning order (Annexue P4) shall stand quashed.” The resignation of the petitioner from the post of Director and Chairmanship of the Company was accepted with effect from 16.10.2006. The cheques in question were issued on 2.11.2006 and 9.11.2006 i.e. after the date when the resignation submitted by the petitioner, had been accepted. In these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint (Annexure Crl. Misc. No. M-3821 of 2010 (O&M) -4- P3) and Summoning Order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P4) qua the petitioner are quashed. (SABINA) July 15, 2010 JUDGE Arya