The main legal point established in the judgment is that the timing of a director's resignation from a company and their involvement in the company's affairs, especially in the context of dishonored cheques, is a triable issue that cannot be conclusively determined at the initial stage of quashing a summoning order.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioner seeks quashing of summoning order dated 24.04.2018 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-04, South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi in Criminal Complaint No. 3611/2018 titled as "M/s Shivam Shubham Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s The Aura Creation Exports Private Limited & Ors." and all its consequent proceedings, so far as it relates to the petitioner.

2. A perusal of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') reveals that the complainant (respondent no. 1 herein) i.e. 'M/s Shivam Shubham Fashions Pvt. Ltd.', a Private Limited Company, was having business relations with the accused no. 1 (respondent no. 2 herein) i.e. 'M/s. Aura Creation Exports Private Limited & Ors.', whose directors were accused no. 2 i.e. Tarun Narang (respondent no. 3 herein) and accused no. 3 i.e. Ambika Narang (petitioner herein). The case of complainant was that the accused company had ordered laces and embroidery items of different kind which the complainant had supplied from time to time against the bills, for which payments/part-payments were made by the accused company in due course of business. It is stated that as on 28.02.2018, an amount of Rs.35,09,844/- was still due for payment by the accused company as per the books of complainant. It is alleged that in order to discharge part liability, the accused company had issued a Cheque bearing no. 825500 dated 30.11.2017 for Rs.19,29,922/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Nine Hundred and Twenty Two) drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector-27, Noida Branch, duly signed by accused no. 2 (respondent no.3). Upon presentation of said cheque by the complainant for encashment with its bank i.e. Citi Bank Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi, the cheque was returned unpaid vide memo dated 17.02.2018 with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. On 16.03.2018, a legal notice of demand dated 15.03.2018 under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 was sent to the accused persons by the complainant calling upon them to pay and clear a sum of Rs.19,29,922/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Nine Hundred and Twenty Two) within 15 days from receipt of notice, which was delivered at the addresses of accused persons on 17.03.2018. Having not received any payment from the accused persons, the complainant filed the present complaint bearing no. 3611/2018 before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-04, South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi.

3. The case set up by the petitioner is that she had resigned from the office of Director of the accused company, vide resignation letter dated 13.10.2017, with effect from 25.10.2017 as per provisions of Section 168 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the corresponding Form DIR-11 was duly filed on 24.11.2017 with the official website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is further the case of petitioner that after resigning from the accused company, she had started working with another company as an employee, and in November-December, 2018, the petitioner had learnt that she was being prosecuted in certain cases which she had no knowledge about, after which she had engaged a new counsel and upon so advised, she had started entering appearance in the relevant matters and present case is one such matter.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner had resigned with effect from 25.10.2017 i.e. before the cheques were even allegedly issued, returned and prior to the commencement of subsequent legal proceedings. It is also stated that the cheque in question was issued by the accused company bearing the signature of accused no. 2 (respondent no. 3 herein), and the criminal complaint is bereft of any averments with respect to the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged transaction. Learned counsel for petitioner argu