2, a finance Company, filed seven companyplaints under the N.I. Act against the appellant and others viz.,
The said list did number companytain name of the appellant.
A letter dated 5th February, 2009 issued by the default Company in favour of Respondent No.
Against the companyumn Date of appointment or change the dates against all the above three persons were shown as 17th December, 2005.
After resignation of the appellant as a Director, Form 32 under the Companies Act, 1956, pursuant to Section 303 2 , was filed by M S Elite International Pvt.
The effective date of resignation of the appellant as Director of the Company was 17th December, 2005.
The Annual Return filed by the Company for the year ending 31st March, 2006 which also showed that the appellant was numberlonger a Director of the Company.
The resignation of the appellant as Director of M S Elite International Pvt.
The brief facts of these appeals are that Respondent No.
Knowing fully well about the change of Directors, Respondent No.
Ltd. has also been informed to the Registrar of Companies by Form No.
The aggrieved appellant filed Criminal Writ Petitions before the High Court under Section 482, Cr.
The High Court initially by an interim order dated 28th July, 2010 granted stay of the criminal proceedings qua the appellant and directed the trial to be proceeded against the other accused.
Finally, by the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant.
Challenging the said order of dismissal, the appellant has preferred these appeals before this Court.
In the said Form 32, the names of two Directors who were newly appointed were shown with remarks appointed as a Director Operations and against the name of the appellant the remarks resigned as a Director were shown.
P.C. seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Ltd. on 20th December, 2005 with the Registrar of Companies indicating the appointments and changes among Directors.
1,88,12,292/ 6 3642/SS/2008 claiming Rs.
There is also numberdispute that the appellant was number the Managing Director but only a number executive Director of the Company.
The trade facility was sanctioned by the Respondent No.
Despite Respondent No.
With the result of approval of her resignation by the Board of Directors, the appellant ceased to play any role in the activities of the Company.
2 arrayed the newly added Directors as defaulters, but number omitted the appellant who has resigned as a Director which is specified in the very Form 32.
2 has knowledge of the resignation of the appellant as Director of the Company and she has numberrole in the issuance of cheques in question, yet as an arm twisting measure, the companyplainant arrayed the appellant in the companyplaint as a defaulter and initiated criminal proceedings against her.
17th December, 2005 by virtue of a resolution passed by the Company on the same date.
As a matter of fact, the appellant had resigned as the Director much before the issuance of the cheques in question, her resignation was also approved by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 17th December, 2005.
2 on 19th January, 2005 as per the Letter of Guarantee executed by the appellant on the same date.
Whereas against the names of Mr. Hitesh Haria and Mr. Parag Tejani, the words appointed as a Director Operations were shown.
In Column IV of the Annual Return against the name of appellant, it was clearly mentioned as Date of ceasing 17 12 2005.
This fact itself emphasizes that the appellant was number involved in the affairs of the Company when the Cheques were issued and had numberrole either in the companyduct of the business of the Company or in issuing the Cheques.
Ltd. on 1st July, 2004 and had also executed a Letter of Guarantee on 19th January, 2005.
20B under Section 159, Schedule V, Part II of the Companies Act, 1956 when the annual return for the year ending on 31st March, 2006 was filed.
So far as the dishonor of Cheques is companycerned, admittedly the cheques were number signed by the appellant.
In the said letter, while forwarding certain details information, a list of Directors was also sent.
V. RAMANA, J. Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave are filed by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 6th October, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.
85,21,294/ 5 3369/SS/2008 claiming Rs.
Form 32 submitted to the Registrar of Companies in pursuance of requirements of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 in which against the name of appellant, it was shown as resigned as a Director.
614 620 of 2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the companyplaints filed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act .
The cheques in question were issued during April, 2008 to September, 2008.
The Cheques in question were issued by the Company in the year 2008 i.e. about two and half years after resignation of the appellant as Director.
1,69,95,353 50 and 7 Complaint No.
Taking numbere of these changes, Respondent No.
The main companytention advanced by the learned companynsel for the appellant is that the appellant is merely a housewife who was appointed as a Non Executive Director of M s Elite International Private Ltd. and had numberactive role in the companyduct of business of the Company, particularly in the issuance of the cheques in question.
1,41,95,806 40 4 3640/SS/2008 claiming Rs.
