Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1303 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - petitioner would contend that the petitioner having resigned as Director of the Company cannot be hauled into these proceedings as he is neither the signatory to the cheque nor was present in the deliberations prior to issuance of the cheque - HELD THAT:- The petitioner in the capacity of being a Director of the Company M/s.Wardwiz India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., had signed the agreement that was entered into between accused No.1 and the respondent-complainant. The agreement was signed on 17.8.2018. Long after execution of the agreement to which the petitioner was signatory, the petitioner tenders his resignation as Director of the company with effect from 04.07.2019. This is accepted and notified in Form No.DIR-11 as per the proviso to Section 168(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 16 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 and in DIR-12 as per the proviso to Sections 7(1)(c), 168 and 170(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 17 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules 2014 and 8, 15, 18 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014. The admitted fact is, the cheques were issued in the month of December 2019 and January 2020 not by the petitioner but by accused No.2, the other Director of the Company representing accused No.1/Company of which accused No.2 is the signatory to the instruments involved in the transaction. Therefore, it becomes an admitted fact that the petitioner was not a Director of the Company when the cheques were issued - The notices though were issued, the petitioner did not reply to the notices, ostensibly on the ground that he has nothing to do with the Company after his resignation. This cannot become a ground for the complainant to initiate proceedings dragging the petitioner, notwithstanding him becoming an Ex-Director on the date of the transaction. In the teeth of the admitted facts, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner will have to come out clean in a trial, after him producing the documents with regard to resignation is unacceptable, as those documents without doubt are public documents, which would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has resigned on 4.7.2019 - the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in the case at hand and the proceedings against the petitioner are to be obliterated. Petition allowed.
|