JUDGMENT :

1. All these applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code’ for short) for quashing and setting aside the complaints being Criminal Case Nos.2613 of 2016, 2615 of 2016, 2622 of 2016, 2611 of 2016, 2614 of 2016, 2618 of 2016 and 2621 of 2016 respectively filed under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act (`NI Act’ for short).

2. As the common question of facts and law are involved in all these applications, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common oral judgment.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Vimal Purohit waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Ratanpara for the applicants submitted that the impugned complaint is not maintainable against the applicants as no specific averments, much less any averment as per the requirement of Section 141 of the NI Act has been made against the applicants. He further submitted that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 resigned as director in the year 2006 and the applicant no.3 resigned in the year 1996, and the resolution is passed to that effect. Form No.32 also came to be filed with the Registrar of Companies, while the cheques in question were issued on 3.3.2007 and deposited and dishonoured on 30.3.2007. He, therefore, submitted that vicarious liability of the accused company cannot be extended to the applicants, who have already resigned much prior to the issuance of cheques.

4.2 He has further submitted that even from the reading of the complaint, there is no specific averment or allegation about the liability of the director of the company; that in any case, the complainant can certainly recover the dues as the company is still in existence; that there is no specific averment about the cheques being given for security or post-dated cheques for any specific purpose; that the averments regarding the change of affairs is missing in the complaint. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have no connection with the business of the company after they resigned in the year 2006 and 1996 respectively.

4.3 Learned advocate for the applicant has relied on the decisions in the case of Anil Khadkiwala V/s State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2019)17 SCC 294, more particularly, paragraphs 1 to 3, 7 and 11 and in the case of Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. V/s Anu Mehta & Ors., Navkar Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Etc. Reported in (2015) 1 SCC 103, more particularly, paragraphs 29 to 31.

4.4 Learned advocate for the applicants further submitted that it is not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company without anything more as to the role of the Director. He submitted that from the bare reading of the complaint, all the allegations are levelled against the accused no.1- and no averments are made against the present applicants except that the applicants were directors of the accused no.1-company and they were responsible for the conduct of the business. He, therefore, the ingredients of Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act are not made out.

4.5 Learned advocate for the applicant, therefore, submitted that this is a fit case where the Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code by quashing the impugned complaints qua the applicants, especially, when the company is available to the present complainant to recover the dues, if any.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Abhishek Sharma appearing for learned advocate Mr.Vimal Purohit for the respondent no.2-complainant has opposed these applications and submitted that the applicants were directors at the relevant point of time and the accused in the said complaint filed by the complainant is managing the affairs of the accused no.1-company; he has purchased t