TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y as well as the persons incharge of day to day affairs of the company can be prosecuted for the dishonour of such cheque. But the same cannot be alleged as against quondam Directors, who before the issuance of cheque have resigned to the posts of Directors. The petitioners are not signatories to the cheque. Hence, directing the petitioners herein to face trial would be nothing but abuse of process of Court and same would be a futile exercise. The Criminal Petition is allowed. - Criminal Petition No.895 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2022 - Honourable Sri Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy For the Petitioner : T Nagarjuna Reddy For the Respondent : Public Prosecutor (AP) ORDER:- This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice is served on the 2nd respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued on the sole ground that the petitioners have resigned to the posts of Directors of A1 company on 09.4.2014, 03.12.2013 and 06.11.2013 and the present cheque has been issued on 15.7.2015, and also placed reliance on Forms 32. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that these are all questions of fact and have to be decided in the course of trial and it is premature stage to come to a conclusion that the petitioners have resigned to the posts of Directors of company and further argued that these are all the defences, which can be raised dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar lines has reiterated that if Director of the company has resigned to the post of Director and the Registrar of Companies was informed of the same in terms of Section 303(2) of the Companies Act, it is suffice to show that he/she ceases to be a director of the company. Basing on the said principle, the Hon ble Apex Court quashed the complaint therein for not complying with Section 210 (1) and (3) of Companies Act. In Smt.A.L.Uday Shankar Harshitha vs The State Of A.P., 2018 SCC Online Hyd. 404 the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows; In GUNMALA SALES PRIVATE LTD. (supra) the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in HARSHENDRA KUMAR D v. REBATILATA KOLEY [(2011) 3 SCC 351] in which also a similar issue came up f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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 accusation. But it, further, observed that, however, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents which are beyond suspicion or doubt placed by the accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty of justice if the accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial Court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the material which has significant bearing on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
