MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), is for quashing of Complaint bearing registration No. 1265 of 2017, titled as M/s Rajiv Trader v. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. and others, filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’) as well as the order dated 18.03.2017, whereby the petitioner had been summoned to face trial in the aforesaid complaint, along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned complaint has been filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner and the co-accused on the allegations that M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. (for short, ‘the company’) of which the petitioner is a director, used to purchase paddy from the complainant from time to time and the transactions continued till the year 2014 on credit basis. After settling the accounts, the complainant found that an amount of Rs.6,66,425/- was outstanding towards the accused. On a demand made by the respondent/complainant, the accused, in order to discharge their legally enforceable liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 078218 dated 27.06.2016 in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was presented by the complainant before its banker on 23.09.2016, but the same was returned unpaid with the remarks ‘funds insufficient. The complainant served legal notice dated 19.10.2016 upon the petitioner and the co-accused. They still failed to make payment of the amount of the cheque within prescribed period, thereby compelling the complainant to file the aforementioned complaint.

3. On considering the preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 18.03.2017, issued process as against the petitioner and co-accused under Section 138 of N. I. Act to face trial in the aforementioned complaint.

Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint, summoning order as well as all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

4. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned summoning order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is cryptic, non-speaking and reflects complete non-application of judicious mind. It is argued that the complaint itself is bereft of any specific averments qua the petitioner and merely contains bald and omnibus allegations that all the accused persons, being Directors, were in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company. The complaint lacks specific allegations against the petitioner that he was one of the Directors and was responsible for day to day affairs of the company. The vague assertions made in the complaint do not satisfy the settled legal requirement for fastening vicarious liability.

5. It is further argued by learned senior counsel that the very basis of arraying the petitioner as an accused is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable, inasmuch as the petitioner had resigned from the directorship of the company on 21.01.2016 i.e. much prior to the date of issuance of the cheque in question i.e. 27.06.2016. A copy of the Form No. DIR-11, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4, would clearly establish the fact that the petitioner had resigned on 21.01.2016. Consequently, he was neither in charge of, nor responsible for