JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

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. 33269, 33268, 33253, 33262, 33263, 33264, 33265, 33252, 33266, 33267, 35578, 35579, 33271 and 33270 of 2013 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 APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent no. 1-state and learned advocate Ms. Minoo Shah waives service of notice of rule for respondent no. 2.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17940 of 2018 are considered, which are as under:

4.1. A complaint came to be filed by the complainant stating that the complainant is a limited company registered under the Companies Act; that the applicants and one another are directors of one Superfine Syntex Ltd. - a limited company registered under the Companies Act; that the complainant is engaged in manufacturing and selling of polyester chips, yarn, sarees and clothes; that the applicants have purchased polyester chips vide three different invoices, for which Superfine Syntex Ltd. has undertaken to pay the due amount; three cheques for the same were issued to the complainant; however, when the cheques were deposited, the same were returned with endorsement ‘exceeds arrangement’ therefore, demand notice was issued to the accused company and their directors; reply was given to the same, however, the complainant filed the impugned criminal cases against the applicants, which are sought to be quashed by filing these applications.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Munshi for the applicants submitted that the applicant no. 1 is permanent resident of Kolkata; that both the applicants have given their resignation as directors dated 10.12.2012 which was considered by the said company in its resolution dated 10.12.2012 and filed the same before the ROC by filing form no. 32. He further submitted that the applicants were never engaged into day to day activities of the said company nor are they signatories to the cheque; that the cheque given to the complainant along with the forwarding letter dated 4.1.2013 was signed by original accused no. 3 and not the applicants; that there is no averment in the complaint that the applicants are directors and in charge of the day to day affairs of the company and there is only a bald assertion made by the complainant in the complaint; that there is no averment in the complaint itself to show how the applicants were actively involved in the company and what acts and duties were performed by the applicants in the company and therefore the basic averment of Section 141 of the NI Act is not complied with; that the applicants have already tendered their resignations which are accepted by the Registrar of Companies in the year 2012. He, therefore, submitted that these applications are required to be allowed and the impugned complaints are required to be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.

5.2 He relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions:

1. K. Srikant Singh vs. North East Securities Ltd. and Another, 2007 (9) JT SC 449

2. Saroj Kumar Poddar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2007 (3) SCC 693

3. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal, 2010 (3) SCC 330

4. SMS Pharmaceutical Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, 2005 (8) SCC 89

5. Rahul Chaturbhai Vaghasia vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5481 of 2011 and 5482 of 2011, dated 3.2.2017

6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Minoo Shah for the respondent no. 2-complainant submitted that