A. Hanumanthu, J. - These two petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 245/97 pending before XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and C.C. No. 246/97 pending before IV Metropolitan Magistrate. Hyderabad initiated against these petitioners by the 1st respondent.

2. As the parties involved are the same and the point involved in both the petitions is the same, they are being disposed of by a common order.

3. The facts in brief, are as under:

The 1st respondent, Small Scale Industries Development Bank of India, is a Public Financial Institution having its Head Office at Lucknow and a branch office at Hyderabad, represented by its Dy. General Manager, Kittis Limited is a registered Company and it is having dealings with the 1st respondent under the "Direct discounting of Bills, (components) Scheme under the said scheme, the said Company has to honour the bills discounted by the 1st respondent on the respective due dates from time to time. The Company fell due in a sum of Rs. 1,29,26.500/- by 19-2-1997. In discharge of that liability, the Company issued the Cheque bearing No. 377825. dated 18-2-1997 for Rs. 32,80,000/

(2) Cheque bearing No. 377826, dated 18-2-1997 for Rs. 33,04,625 and (3) Cheque bearing No. 377827 dated 192-1997 for Rs. 23,31,375/and the Cheque bearing No. 377828, dated 24-2-1997 for Rs. 30,76,125/-. When those cheques were presented for collection of payment through clearing by their banker Reserve Bank of India, Saifabad, they were dishonoured and they were returned unpaid by the bankers of the said Company by remark "exceeds arrangements", Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 issued a demand notices by registered post to the Company and its Directors. Though the notices were served upon them, they failed to pay the said cheque amounts. Hence, the 1st respondent filed C.C. No. 245/ 97 against the Company (A-1) and the Managing Director (A-2) and these two petitioners (A-3 and A-4), who are the Directors of the said Company with respect to the dishonour of the cheques dated 8-2-1997 and 19-2-1997. The respondent filed C.C. No: 246/97 against the Company and Managing Director of the Company and these petitioners as regards the dishonour of the cheque dated 24-2-1997. The learned Magistrate took the cases on file for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with respect to the Company its Managing Director and these two petitioners and process has been issued for the appearance of all the accused. The petitioners, who are A-3 and A-4 in both the cases have come up with these petitions 'to quash the' said proceedings initiated against them.

4. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners who were Directors of the accused-1st respondent-Company have resigned from the Company with effect from 21-12-1996 and as such they ceased to be the Directors of the Company by the date of issuance of the cheques on behalf of the Company. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even before their retirement as Directors with effect from 21-12-1996, these petitioners were only sleeping Directors of the Company and the entire transactions for the Company were being looked after the Managing Director-A2 and that the petitioners never participated in the day-to-day affairs of the 1st accused-Company and that there no averments in the complaints 'that the petitioners herein were participating in the day-today management of the Company. The learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent-complainant on the other hand submits that the allegation that these petitioners ceased to be the Directors of the 1st accused-Company is false that they stood as guarantors for the discount facility extended to the 1st accused-Company as Directors of the said Company and the present plea that they resigned from the Company as Directors with effect from 21-12-1996 has been set up with a view to avoid their prosecution