J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.C. 828/2022 CRL.M.C. 903/2022 The present petitions have been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 06.10.2021 against the petitioners. summoning order has been Predominantly challenged the order on the ground that the petitioners have resigned from the directorship before the issuance of the cheque.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the court to the Form-32 which reflects that the petitioner had resigned much prior to the issuance of the cheque.

Learned counsel submits that in view of this the petitioner is liable to be discharged from the complaint and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petition as relied upon the judgment in Har Sarup Bhasin v. Origo Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. 2020 SCC Online Del

10.

Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that even as per the documents filed by the petitioner, he continues to run the affairs of the company. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the court to the account/form of the drawer company as per which the petitioner was one of the authorized signatories. Learned counsel further submitted that subsequently therein in 2008 a resolution was passed in which certain more persons were added as authorized signatory in addition to the persons including the petitioner who were already signatory. Learned counsel submits that this resolution was duly passed by the petitioner herein. Learned counsel submits that even if the petitioner resigned in 2007, the petitioner being in-charge and responsible for running the affairs of the company is liable to be prosecuted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is placing reliance on the documents which have not seen the light of the day and have not been ever proved before the learned Trial Court.

The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The exercise under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised herein only to prevent the abuse the process of the court and of the miscarriage of justice. Section

141 of Negotiable Instruments Act provides as under:

(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: 22 [Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter.]

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,—

(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

Interpretation of the Section has to be made in the manner which should fulfill the intendment and the object of the legislation. The purpose behind enacting the Negotiable Instrument