JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. Since the identical question of facts and law are involved in the above mentioned criminal revisions this Court is disposing of the said criminal revisions by a composite judgment.

2. In CRR 2639 of 2022 the petitioners have prayed for quashing of a complaint registered as CS Case No.422499 of 2014 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court at Calcutta under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. It is alleged by the petitioners that they retired from the post of Directors of Diamond Shipping Company Ltd by submitting their resignations before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 10th June, 2014. On 21st June, 2014 the said three cheques were drawn on behalf of Diamond Shipping Company Ltd in favour of opposite party No.2 for a total sum of Rs.30,10,908/-. The said cheques were deposited by the opposite party No.2 in his bank for encashment but all the three cheques were dishonoured on 15th October, 2014 with the remarks “Account blocked situation covered”. Subsequently, the opposite party No.2 issued a notice upon M/s Diamond Shipping Company Ltd demanding payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period of time. However, the company failed to pay the said sum and finally the opposite party No.2 lodged a complaint against the company and the present petitioners.

4. It is contended by the petitioners that the cheques were issued on 21st June, 2014. While the petitioners retired from the post of Directors of the said company with effect from 10th June, 2014. By an order dated 2nd September, 2014 the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Government of India requested the company to freeze the bank account No.018705008342 of the said company.

5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not the Directors of the complainant company on the date on which the cheques were issued. In support of his contention, Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351. In the said decision it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is fairly well settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or the 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 accusations. 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 materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court fell into grave error in not taking into consideration the uncontroverted documents relating to the appellant’s resignation from the post of Director of the company. Since the appellant resigned from the post of Directorship before issuance of cheque, and his resignation was accepted, the erstwhile director cannot be prosecuted in a complaint for dishonor of cheques. If the complaint is allowed to proceed against the appellant, it would result in gross injustice to the appellant and tantamount to an abuse of the process of the court.

6. The next limb of argument made on behalf of the petitioners is that the bank account of the company was frozen by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Government of India with effect from 2nd September, 2014. Therefore, freezing of bank account of the petitioner had the effect of disabling the company from operating or maintaining the said account. The petitio