IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.35504 of 2007 PRAMOD SHANKER DAYAL son of late Ram Shanker Dayal, resident of Dayal Niwas, Tharpakhna, P.S. Lower Bazar, Ranchi, District Ranchi. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited having its registered office at 4th floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Path, Police Station Srikrishnapuri, Town and District-Patna, through its authorised officer, Sri O.P. Singh O/C O.T.S. cum lega. . . . . . . Opposite parties. With Cr.Misc. No.35505 of 2007 PRAMOD SHANKER DAYAL son of late Ram Shanker Dayal, resident of Dayal Niwas, Tharpakhna, P.S. Lower Bazar, Ranchi, District Ranchi. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited having its registered office at 4th floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Path, Police Station Srikrishnapuri, Town and District-Patna, through its authorised officer, Sri O.P. Singh O/C O.T.S. cum lega. . . . . . . Opposite parties. With Cr.Misc. No.35516 of 2007 PRAMOD SHANKER DAYAL son of late Ram Shanker Dayal, resident of Dayal Niwas, Tharpakhna, P.S. Lower Bazar, Ranchi, District Ranchi. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited having its registered office at 4th floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Path, Police Station Srikrishnapuri, Town and District-Patna, through its authorised officer, Sri O.P. Singh O/C O.T.S. cum lega. . . . . . . Opposite parties. With Cr.Misc. No.35518 of 2007 PRAMOD SHANKER DAYAL son of late Ram Shanker Dayal, resident of Dayal Niwas, Tharpakhna, P.S. Lower Bazar, Ranchi, District Ranchi. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited having its registered office at 4th floor, Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Path, Police Station Srikrishnapuri, Town and District-Patna, through its authorised officer, Sri O.P. Singh O/C O.T.S. cum lega. . . . . . . Opposite parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Sr. Adv. For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Mayank Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Dr. Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P. ----------- - 2 - 4/ 09.11.2009 All these four applications bearing Cr. Misc. No. 35504 of 2007, Cr. Misc. No. 35505 of 2007, Cr. Misc. No. 35516 of 2007 and Cr. Misc. No. 35518 of 2007 are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In all these cases petitioner and the complainant are common. The allegation is common and cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 406, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of Negotiable of Instrument Act and petitioner has been summoned to face trial. These complaint cases are Complaint case no. 535(M) of 2005, Complaint case no. 1403 (M) of 2005, Complaint Case no. 301 (M) of 2005 and Complaint case no. 1831(M) of 2005 Trial No. 1147 of 2005. All these cases are pending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. The prosecution case is that petitioner was one of the Directors of the Company, namely, Rudra Steel Pvt. Ltd. along with other accused persons. The Company had taken loan from the complainant Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as „the Corporation‟). Pursuant to one time settlement scheme floated by the complainant, one of the accused persons approached the complainant / Corporation on 24.10.2004 and submitted post dated cheques towards the payment of liability. The cheque presented by the accused was dishonoured and returned with endorsement “exceeds arrangement”. - 3 - The petitioner submits that long before Opposite party no.2 floated One Time Settlement Scheme vide order dated 19.10.2004 and also long before the post dated cheques were given to the complainant, the petitioner had resigned from the post of Board of Directors on 26.03.2003 itself. He, thus, submits that statement in Complaint that the petitioner is Director of the company in the complaint case on 09.03.2005 is a complete misrepresentation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has submitted his resignation to the Board of Directors, which was accepted and a copy of his resignation was sent to the Registrar of the Company also. In the case of Saumil Dilip Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors reported in AIR 2002 Bombay 194, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court at paragraph-7 of the judgment held as follows: “7. When a director has tendered his resignation and the Board of Directors has accepted it and has acted on it, such director cannot be held liable for the liability incurred by the said company after the date of acceptance of his resignation except the liability which has been incurred by him for purchase of shares of the said company and nothing more.” The petitioner herein has resigned from the Board of Directors of the company in question and due intimation was given under statutory provisions to the Registrar of the Company long before the alleged occurrence. Thus to describe him in the complaint as one of the Directors of the Company was a misrepresentation and continuance of criminal proceeding against him amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. - 4 - Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the complainant was not aware of the internal changes that may have taken place in the company and from time to time one of the Directors may have resigned. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the criminal prosecution and order taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner to face trial in the aforesaid cases are hereby quashed. All these applications are, accordingly, allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)