A former director cannot be prosecuted for dishonored cheques issued after their resignation since liability under NI Act stems from current signatories.

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakker, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. By way of this application under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Honour may be pleased to allow this application,
(B) Your Honour may be pleased to quash a Criminal Case No.37513/2018 filed by the Respondent No.1 pending before Hon'ble Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad under S.138 and S.141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 with clear indication that it will be quashed and set aside as far as the application is concerned,
(C) Your Honour may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Case No.37513/2018 pending before Hon'ble Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad under S.138 and S.141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 filed by the Respondent No.1 against the applicant, till this application is not finally decided and disposed of,
(D) Your Honour may be pleased to stay further proceedings in Criminal Case No.37513/2018 pending before the Hon'ble Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad filed by the Respondent No.1 pending notice and admission of this Cr. Ma. Against the applicant,
(DI) Your Honour may be pleased to grant any other relief as is deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice."

3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant retired as Director from the company on 01.10.2016. The applicant has submitted DIR12,l form for cessation as Director and the same was approved with effect from 01.10.2016. The accused company had issued cheque bearing No.000925 in favour of the respondent No.1 for an amount of Rs.1,44,555 / ,i The respondent No.1 had deposited the said cheque in the bank and the same was dishonored / returned on 01.03.2018.
3.1 The legal notice was given to the applicant on 10.03.2018. The respondent No.1, thereafter filed criminal complaint under the provisions of S.138 and S.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 on 10.04.2018 before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.32, Ahmedabad regarding return of cheque amounting to Rs.1,44,555 / ,1, which has culminated in to Criminal Case No.37513/2018.
3.2 On 28.09.2018, the applicant appeared through advocate and has filed the discharge application in the trial Court. The said application for discharge was rejected on the ground that in absence of any powers under S.482 of the Code and also whether the applicant was director or not, cannot be decided unless the evidence is recorded. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present application seeking quashment of the Criminal Case No.37513 of 2018 filed by the respondent No.1 under S.138 and S.141 of the before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

4. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the application.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that no case is made out against the present applicant under S.138 and S.141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He also submits that the applicant was neither the signatory to the cheque nor the cheque was drawn from the bank account of the applicant. He further submits that when the applicant was not director in the said company since 01.10.2016, no question arises about she being person in,lcharge / authorized of company affairs. He further submits that the complainant has not taken due care to verify that who were directors of the said company. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'bl