JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of all five of the above-mentioned cases as they arise from the similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, facts are culled out from CRM-M-41774-2022.

2. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint no. NACT-3598 of 2020 dated 21.08.2020 titled 'Manoj Singla v. SRS Buildmart Pvt. Ltd and ors' under Sections 138, 141(1) and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 25.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad (Annexure P-3) under Section 138 of the NI Act.

3. Briefly, the facts are that petitioner No.l is the Director of a company named SRS Buildmart Private Limited while petitioner No.2 is the Promoter, Organiser and Officer-in-Charge for the said company. On 04.07.2017, petitioners No.l and 2 asked the respondent to invest in their company and borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from him, assuring him that it would be returned with interest at the rate of 1% per month. The petitioners-accused paid the interest in cash up to 05.10.2017. In the month of March, 2018, on the request of the respondent, the accounts were settled for an amount of Rs.9,17,000/- i.e. the total amount including interest upto 06.05.2020. Out of this amount of Rs.9,17,000/-, the petitioners-accused paid Rs.5000 in cash and to discharge the remaining liability, issued cheque bearing No.420231 dated 06.05.2020 for Rs.9,12,000/- in favour of the respondent. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured vide memo dated 29.06.2020 with remarks 'account blocked.' Thereafter, a legal notice dated 13.07.2002 was sent to the petitioners-accused. Since, the petitioners failed to make the requisite payment, the present complaint was filed.

4. On finding a prima facie case against petitioners, learned JMIC, Faridabad summoned them to face trial for commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, vide order dated 25.04.2022.

5. For the sake of clarity, it is apt to give certain details with respect to cheques, which were dishonoured and the summoning orders against which present petitions are filed, which are tabulated as under:-

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that admittedly the cheques in question in all the cases have been issued after a lapse of more than three years from their resignation on 01.06.2017. The resignation of petitioners is clearly discernible from Form DIR-12, which was uploaded on the official website of the Registrar of Companies on 24.06.2017. The cheque in question was dishonoured on 29.06.2020 i.e. after petitioners had resigned as Director of the company. As such, petitioners cannot be held liable in any manner in respect of dishonour of cheques in question. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in Ajay Aggarwal Vs. M/s Integrated Finance Company Limited, Criminal Appeal Nos.586-594 of 2018 decided on 28.04.2018; Ashoke Mal Bafna Vs. M/s Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. 2017 AIR (SC) 2854; Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley etc. (2011) 3 SCC 351; Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2015 (1) RCR (Civil)