TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question the proceedings in C.C.No.51550/2021 registered for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard Sri.V.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.S.Sushantvenkatesh Pai, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 3. Petitioner is accused No.3. Petitioner at the relevant point in time was a Director of accused No.1-M/s.Wardwiz India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., ( Company for short) incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and accused No.2 is also the Director of the Company. The Company and the complainant entered into an agreement for providing of services with regard to installation of antivirus to which the petitioner is the signatory in the capacity of being a Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cheque, as he had resigned and would place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HARSHENDRA KUMAR .D. v. REBATILATA KOLEY AND OTHERS reported in (2011)3 SCC 351 to contend that the proceedings under the N.I.Act against the Ex-Director cannot be maintained 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute these submissions to contend that the petitioner is the signatory to the agreement that was entered into between the complainant and the Company wherein he had represented the Company. The cheques are issued, albeit, by the other Director, but they are in furtherance of the agreement to which the petitioner was also a privy as he had signed the documents. The petitioner di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Therefore, Form Nos.DIR-11 and 12 are public documents. The said documents would indicate the date of filing of resignation with the Company to be 4.7.2019 and from that date, the petitioner ceased to be a Director of M/s.Wardwiz India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 9. The admitted fact is, the cheques were issued in the month of December 2019 and January 2020 not by the petitioner but by acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in no circumstance, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. It is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant's resignation. It is not even the case of the complainants that the dishonoured cheques were issued by the appellant. These facts leave no manner of doubt that on the date the offence was committed by the Company, the appellant was not the Director; he had nothing to do with the affairs of the Company. In this view of the matter, if the criminal complaints are allowed to proceed against the appellant, it would result in gross injustice to the appellant and tantamount to an abuse of process of the court. (Emphasis supplied) 11. 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 docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
