Quashing of criminal complaint barred where directorship and company responsibility remain disputed questions of fact.

A petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a criminal complaint and summoning order on the basis that the petitioner was neither a director nor in charge of the company. The petitioner denied any connection with the company and relied on records disputing directorship, while the respondent pointed to correspondence and documents naming him as a director, including a resignation letter attributed to him. Because the petitioner's role in the company depended on disputed facts requiring evidence, the issue could not be decided in quashing proceedings. The complaint and summoning order were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and summoning order could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the petitioner was not a director or person-in-charge of the company and had no connection with it.

Analysis: The petitioner disputed his association with the company and relied on certain records to deny directorship, while the respondent relied on correspondence and documents showing his name as a director and on a letter said to have been written by him resigning from the board. The question whether the petitioner was in fact a director or otherwise responsible for the company's affairs required examination of evidence. Such a factual controversy could not be resolved in a petition for quashing.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on these disputed facts and the complaint and summoning order were sustained.

---