1. These are petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the complaint case filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaints were filed against a company Tip Info Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Others, including the petitioner. It has been alleged in the petitions that the petitioner is neither a Signatory to the cheque in question nor had he handed over to the complainant. It has been further alleged that the petitioner had resigned as a Director of this company on 10th August, 2007, much prior to the issue of cheque in question.

2. A perusal of the complaint would show that accused No.1 is a private limited company. Accused No.4 Nitin Kumar was alleged to be a Director and share holder of accused No.1. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the accused, towards payment of legally recoverable debt, issued the cheque in question to the complainant, which, when presented, was dishonored. It has been generally alleged in the complaint that “the accused has been actively involved in the affairs of accused No.1 and is a necessary party to the offence.”

3. It is an admitted case that cheque in question has not been signed by the petitioner. It is also an admitted case that the petitioner is not the Managing Director of accused No.1 Tip Info Centre Pvt. Ltd. Though the petitioner claims that he had resigned as a Director of the company with effect from 10th August, 2007 and his resignation was also accepted by the Board of Director in its meeting held on the very same day, certified copy of form 32 has not been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, for the purpose of the present petition I proceed on the assumption that the petitioner was a Director of accused No.1 Tip Info Centre Pvt. Ltd on the date offene under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was committed by accused No.1.

4. In the present case, there is no specific averment that the petitioner was in-charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company. There is no such factual averment in the complaint as would indicate that the petitioner was in-charge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. There is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner was in overall control of the day-today business of the company nor are there any such factual averment from which such a control can be inferred. There is no such particular in the complaint, from which it may be inferred that he was involved in day to day affairs of the company. There is no allegation in the complaint that he was party to any decision to issue cheque in question or to get it dishonoured. Thus, the complaint contains no such particulars as would enable the Court to draw an inference that he was a person in-charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. Admittedly, the cheque in question was not signed by the petitioner. Admittedly, he was not the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director of the company at the time when offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was committed by the company. There is no averment in the complaint that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of the petitioner or is attributable to any negligence on his part. Therefore, the case cannot be brought within the purview of sub-section 2 of section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has referred to “N. Rangachari v. BSNL”. In the case before the Hon”ble Supreme Court, it was alleged in the complaint that accused No.2 and 3 were Directors of the company and were Incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. In that case, the Hon”ble Supreme Court, noticing the above referred allegations in the complaint, refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Cr