Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. This petition is dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner No. 2 which is a company. It is pointed out that petitioner No. 1 is a Director, but he is not responsible for or incharge of the affairs of the company It is also pointed out that in the complaint, there is no specific allegation of individual involvement of petitioner No. 1 and in absence thereof, proceedings against petitioner No. 1 cannot proceed. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2005(4) RCR(Criminal) 141.

2. Accordingly, proceedings against petitioner No. 1 will stand quashed at this stage making it clear that if there is any material during evidence against petitioner No. 1, the trial Court will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.