J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Thakore, the learned APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. Siddhartha Samal, the learned counsel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant-original accused No. 6 has prayed for the following reliefs;

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned complaint dated 14th December, 2011/12th January, 2012, registered as Criminal Case No. 259 of 2012 (Annexure A) and also quash all consequential or other proceedings arising out of the said complaint qua the petitioner.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned verification order dated 12th January, 2012, of the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing summons to the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 259 of 2012, (Annexure A).

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26th November, 2013, passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 109 of 2012, (Annexure B) qua the petitioner.

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further proceedings in connection with or pursuant to impugned complaint dated 14th December, 2011/12th January, 2012, registered as Criminal Case No. 259 of 2012.

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad interim relief in terms of para 7(D) above.

(F) Any other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted."

3. The writ applicant herein is one of the accused persons in a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complaint filed in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 36, Ahmedabad came to be registered as the Criminal Case No. 259 of 2012. The writ applicant herein is one of the independent directors of the accused No. 1 company, namely, Electrotherm (India) Ltd. It appears from the materials on record that the cheque in question was signed by the accused Nos. 4 and 12. The accused No. 4 in the complaint is the Managing Director and CEO of the Company, and the accused No. 12 is the authorized signatory.

4. The short point that falls for my consideration is whether the applicant herein, who is one of the Directors of the Company is responsible for the dishonour of the cheque issued by the original accused No. 4 and 12 on behalf of the company.

5. Mr. Trivedi, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that his client may be a Director of the company, but is no way responsible for the day to day affairs of the management of the company. He submitted that mere reproduction of the provision of Section 141 in the complaint is not sufficient. The complainant must show something prima facie as to how a particular accused is responsible for the day to day affairs of the management of the company.

6. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Siddhartha Samal, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2-Bank. Mr. Siddhartha has drawn my attention to the averments made in para 2 of the complaint which reads thus:

That accused No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. Accused No. 2 is the Chairman and CTO, Accused No. 3 is the Managing Director, Accused No. 4 is the Joint Managing Director And CEO, Accused No. 5 is the whole time Director, Accused Nos. 6 to 9 are Directors, Accused No. 10 is the Chief Financial Officer, Accused No. 11 is the Company Secretary and Accused No. 12 is the Authorized Signatory of Accused No. 1 and hence, all accused are jointly and severally liable.

7. He has also drawn my attention