2023 (5) TMI 323 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - vicarious liability of the Director of the company - petitioner had resigned more than a month prior to even issuance of cheque in question - issuance of summons to petitioner in such case is valid or not? - HELD THAT - The issues regarding date of resignation including as to whether or not or when the resignation letter was actually sent to Board of Directors or as to when were the details qua resignation updated on the MCA website are all triable issues especially in view of lack of certain relevant documents as discussed in preceding paras in the present case. The material placed on record by the petitioner is not sterling incontrovertible material or unimpeachable material to show that petitioner was not involved either in day to day activities of the company or had no role in issuance of cheque in question - this Court does not find it a fit case to quash the summoning order dated 24.04.2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the very threshold. The present petition stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of summoning order dated 24.04.2018.
2. Petitioner's resignation from the accused company and its validity.
3. Petitioner's involvement in the issuance and dishonor of the cheque.

Summary:

1. Quashing of Summoning Order:
The petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in relation to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

2. Petitioner's Resignation from the Accused Company:
The petitioner contended that she had resigned from her position as Director of the accused company on 25.10.2017, prior to the issuance of the cheque in question. She filed Form DIR-11 on 24.11.2017 with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. However, the court noted discrepancies in the filing dates and the absence of a board resolution accepting her resignation. The court found that the resignation details were updated on the MCA website on 05.12.2017, after the issuance of the cheque.

3. Petitioner's Involvement in the Issuance and Dishonor of the Cheque:
The court examined whether the petitioner was involved in the issuance and dishonor of the cheque dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 19,29,922/-. The petitioner argued she had no control over the company's financial affairs at the time. The court, however, highlighted the proximity of her alleged resignation and the issuance of the cheque, and the lack of incontrovertible evidence proving her non-involvement.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the issues regarding the petitioner's resignation and involvement in the cheque issuance are triable and cannot be resolved at this stage. The petition to quash the summoning order was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise her contentions before the Metropolitan Magistrate with all relevant documents.