Quashing complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act may rest on unimpeachable resignation documents showing the accused had already left office.

In quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, unimpeachable documents such as a certified Form 32 may be considered to decide whether a company director had already resigned before the cheque dates. Where the material shows the accused was not in charge of or responsible for the company at the relevant time, liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained against that person. The discussion also notes that the separate contention on absence of day-to-day management averments was left undecided.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis that the accused had resigned from the company's directorship before the cheques were issued, and whether the High Court could consider a certified Form 32 and other reliable material at that stage.

Analysis: Liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on the accused being in charge of, and responsible for, the company at the relevant time. A certified Form 32 showing resignation from the board before the cheque dates was treated as reliable and admissible material for deciding the limited question under Section 482. The Court held that such unimpeachable documents could be looked into to determine whether continuation of the prosecution would be justified. On the material produced, the accused was found not to be a director when the cheques were issued, and therefore could not be fastened with liability for the dishonour. The alternative contention regarding absence of averments about day-to-day conduct of business was expressly left undecided.

Conclusion: The proceeding against the petitioner was not maintainable and was liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court may rely on unimpeachable and admissible documents to determine whether an accused company director had already ceased to hold office before the cheque transaction, and if so, the prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be sustained against that person.

---