Quashing of FIR refused where director's resignation was not clearly established and criminal allegations remained fit for investigation.

A writ to restrain the police from registering criminal cases and to quash the FIR was refused where the petitioner claimed he had resigned as director before the alleged offences. The record did not clearly support effective resignation, as the resignation intimation reached the Registrar of Companies later and the material indicated continued association with the company. In the absence of clear material absolving him of liability, the allegations could not be treated as non-existent or incapable of investigation. The court reiterated that quashing is warranted only where no offence is disclosed or the proceedings are shown to be malicious, and held that the petitioner's responsibility had to be examined after investigation, not in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ restraining the police from registering criminal cases and to quashing of the FIR on the plea that he had resigned as director before the alleged offences.

Analysis: The petitioner's claim that his resignation as director had already taken effect was not supported by the record, since the intimation of resignation was received by the Registrar of Companies much later and the material also indicated his continued association with the company thereafter. In the absence of any clear material showing that he stood absolved of liability, no prima facie case was made out to prohibit the police from acting on the depositors' complaints. The law on quashing of criminal proceedings permits interference only where the allegations, even if accepted as true, disclose no offence or where the proceedings are shown to be maliciously instituted. On the available material, the allegations against the petitioner could not be said to be non-existent or incapable of investigation, and the question of his responsibility was one to be examined after investigation, not in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the relief of quashing the FIR or restraining investigation.

---