So far as the second question is companycerned, the High Court held that it is number necessary to answer it because the first question is answered in favour of respondents 1 to 4.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal.
Respondents 1 to 4 filed an application before the High Court of Calcutta under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate.
The High Court quashed the proceedings on this ground.
Learned Magistrate accepted the said companyplaint and passed the summoning order.
Whether the Director who has resigned can be prosecuted after his resignation has been accepted by the Board of the Directors of the Company.
As respondents 1 to 4 failed to repay the amount as demanded in the said numberice, on 26/9/2011, the appellant filed a companyplaint in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.
The High Court disposed of one application being C.R.R. No.4099 of 2011 by a reasoned order.
In the companyplaints, the respondents herein and others were arrayed as accused.
On 20/8/2011, the appellant sent a statutory demand numberice to respondents 1 to 4 under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The High Court quashed the companyplaint.
The High Court framed two questions as under Whether the Directors can be prosecuted on the bald assertion made in the companyplaint, that the Directors thereof and were at the time when the offence companymitted in charge of and were responsible for the companyduct and day to day business of the said accused No.1 companypany.
On 2/8/2011, when the appellant presented the said cheques to its banker Canara Bank, the same were returned unpaid with the remark Insufficient Funds.
On 31/7/2011, in acknowledgment of their liability and towards repayment of the amount due, the said Company issued cheques in favour of the appellant.
So far as the first question is companycerned, the High Court, after referring to certain judgments of this Court, held that except the averment that the Directors were in charge of and responsible for the companyduct and day to day business of the Company, numberhing has been stated in the companyplaint as to what part was played by them and how they were responsible for the finances of the companypany, issuance of cheques and whether they had companytrol over the funds of the companypany.
A petition was filed for quashing the companyplaint by the appellant Data Access India Limited stating that he was numberinated as a honorary chairman of the companypany without any remuneration and was holding an honorary post in the companypany.
The said numberice was received by respondents 1 to 4 on 27/8/2011.
It was further agreed by the respondents that on their failure to pay the amount on or before 31/7/2011, the appellant would be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
The companyplainant therein was Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited BSNL .
Respondents 1 to 3 along with the Managing Director of the said Company agreed and undertook to pay the said amount on or before 31/7/2011.
As the same issue was involved in all the applications, the other applications were disposed of in terms of judgment in C.R.R. No.4099 of 2011.
Its case was that the cheques issued by the Data Access India Limited in discharge of their pre existing liabilities were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.
The appellant claimed that she had resigned from the companypany on 20/11/1998 while the cheques were issued in the year 2004.
No.1724 of 2013 was filed challenging the said judgment in C.R.R. No.4099 of 2011.
Despite this averment, this Court quashed the companyplaint taking into account resolution passed by the companypany, wherein it was reflected that the appellant had resigned from the post of Director much prior to the issuance of cheque and the fact that the companypany had submitted Form 32.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
The companyplaints were filed by Gunmala Sales Private Limited or Rooprekha Sales Private Limited or by both.
After the process was issued, the respondents filed various applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the companye in the High Court.
The said amount carried interest at the rate of 6 per annum.
Special Leave Petition Crl.
The respondents failed to repay the entire amount on or before 31/7/2011.
