IMPORTANT POINT
Directors who had resigned prior to the issuance of a dishonored cheque cannot be held liable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and specific averments are required to establish a director's responsibility for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offense, as per Section 141 of the NI Act.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') have been instituted on behalf of the petitioners, seeking quashing of the criminal complaint case no. 1498/2019, titled as "Ankit Sood Vs. Yumm Bites Foods and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.", pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, District Court Rohini (North West), New Delhi, qua the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act'), are that the complainant i.e. Sh. Ankit Sood is proprietor of `M/s Ankit Sood and Company' which is engaged in supply of food and vegetables, and the accused company i.e. `Yumm Bites Foods and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.' is also engaged in the similar business. It is alleged that the accused company had entered into business relations with the complainant in the year 2015 for supply of fruits and vegetables on a daily basis. It is stated that the bills of the goods supplied were sent to the accused on weekly basis. As per the complaint, initially, the accused was regular in making payments but eventually, the accused had started defaulting in making the payments and from February, 2016 till August, 2017, the complainant had supplied goods worth Rs.26,81,253/-, however, the accused had paid only Rs.17,23,793/- out of the same. It is alleged that in the month of September, 2018, in order to discharge the remaining liability, the accused had issued a cheque bearing no. 241976 dated 05.09.2018 for Rs.9,57,460/- drawn on IDBI Bank, and had assured the complainant that the cheque would be honoured upon its presentation. However, when the complainant had presented the same for encashment with its banker, the cheque had got dishonoured vide cheque returning memo dated 25.10.2018 with the remarks "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant had issued statutory legal notice dated 22.11.2018 to the accused persons, however, they had neither sent any reply to the same nor had made any payment. Thereafter, the present complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed against the accused company arraigned as accused no. 1, and its Directors i.e. Sh. Dheeraj Pahwa as accused no. 2, Sh. Nikhil Mehta as accused no. 3, and Sh. Saurabh Sethi as accused no. 4.

3. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 03.09.2019 had summoned the accused persons. Appearance on behalf of accused no. 3 Sh. Nikhil Mehta was marked on 25.11.2019 before the learned Magistrate. However, the summons issued against the accused no. 4 i.e. Sh. Saurabh Sethi (petitioner herein) had been received back unserved. Moreover, due to non-appearance of accused no. 2 i.e. Sh. Dheeraj Pahwa (petitioner herein), bailable warrants were issued against him.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Sh. Dheeraj Pahwa, argues that the petitioner had resigned and had ceased to be a Director of the accused company w.e.f. 17.07.2017 and thereafter, he had no concern with the day-to-day affairs and decisions of the company qua its business transactions. In this regard, this Court's attention has been drawn towards the resignation letter dated 17.07.2017 as well as Form No. DIR-12 wherein the petitioner is shown to have ceased as Director of Company w.e.f. 17.07.2017. It is stated that the petitioner is not aware of the circumstances and the purpose for which the cheque in question had been issued. It is also stated that the cheque has neither been signed by the petitioner nor is the petitioner aware of the amount if any or at all was payable to the complainant, since the cheque was allegedly issued in September, 2018, whereas the petitioner had already resigned in July, 2017. It is also argued that the complainant has not attributed or assigned any role to the petitioner in the entire complaint. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the summoning order and the complaint case be quashed against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appear