Quashing of criminal complaints against a former director follows absence of any material showing involvement in company defaults.

A director's criminal prosecution was held liable to be quashed where the record showed only a brief tenure and no material that he attended board meetings, took part in management decisions, or otherwise exercised control over the company's affairs. On the facts placed, he was not shown to be a person responsible for the alleged defaults, and the absence of a direct link to the impugned acts made the complaints and summoning order an abuse of process. The Court also noted prior exoneration in related regulatory proceedings, reinforcing that continuation of the criminal cases was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaints and summoning order were liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner had no effective role in the company's affairs during his short tenure and the prosecution amounted to abuse of process.

Analysis: The petitioner's tenure as director was found to be only for a brief period, and the record did not show that he attended board meetings, participated in decisions, or exercised powers under the company law provisions relied upon in the complaints. The Court noted the absence of material connecting him with the alleged defaults and accepted that, on the facts placed, he did not fall within the category of a person responsible for the impugned acts. It also noticed the prior exoneration in the related regulatory proceedings and held that the criminal prosecution, in these circumstances, would amount to misuse of the process of court.

Conclusion: The criminal cases were liable to be quashed and the petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

---