The disputed documents and facts should be established during the trial.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Though this case is posted for hearing on interlocutory application for vacating stay, with the consent of both the counsels, the matter is heard on merits itself.

3. Two questions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and requires to be considered by this Court, are;

1. The complainant who has filed the complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not made specific averments with regard to the role of accused No.3 (petitioner herein) who was also one of the Directors of the Company, and

2. The accused No.3 Mr. Raghavendra Govindaraju Sathyanarayana was not at all the Director as on the date of the issuance of cheque or as on the date of filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable against the accused No.3 (petitioner herein).

4. The factual aspects are not in dispute that the complainant/respondent has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., making the company as first accused and three Directors as accused No.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on the basis of the said complaint, the trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons against the respondents No.1 to 4. Calling in question the cognizance taken by the trial Court and as well as the issuance of process against the accused No.3, the accused No.3 is before this Court on the basis of the above said grounds urged.

5. In support of the above said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Leeladhar H.P., has submitted that though there is some allegations made in the complaint, they are not sufficient and specific with regard to the role of the petitioner as the Director of the first accused company. When there is no specific averments in the complaint with regard to role adverted as one of the Directors, merely because the accused No.3 was a Director of the Company, he cannot be made responsible for issuance of the disputed cheque.

6. Further he submitted before this Court in respect of point No.2 that the resignation has been tendered by the accused No.3/petitioner herein requesting to remove him from the Director’s post with effect from 22.03.2012 itself and Form No.32 was processed and ultimately the Assistant Registrar of Companies has issued a certificate stating that he has been removed from the post of Director w.e.f., 22.03.2012. Therefore, as on the date of filing of the complaint, the petitioner was not a Director of the company. Therefore, no complaint can be lodged against the person, who was not a Director of the Company.

7. Contraverting the above said arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously submitted that there is specific averments made in the complaint with regard to the role and conduct of the accused in the Company and it is specifically stated what has been transpired between the complainant and the first accused company and particularly the role of the accused No.3/petitioner herein at several paragraphs of the complaint. Therefore, on overall reading of the complaint, one can definitely understand the role of the accused No.3 in the company.

8. Learned counsel also submitted that Form No.32 though produced which is a certified copy issued by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, but it is a disputed document. As on the date of the complaint, there was no acceptance of resignation of the petitioner herein, there was no communication by the company Registrar in this regard. He also produced a document before this Court today along with a memo, showing that one Mr. Alok who is the person competent to put his Digital Signature to process the resignation letter of the accused No.3/petitioner herein, actually signed the said document on 10.04.2013. In such an eventuality how the