Quashing of cheque dishonour complaint refused where disputed resignation as director raised factual issues requiring evidence.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where the accused claimed he had resigned as director before the cheque transaction. The genuineness of the resignation, whether it was accepted by the company, and the timing and effect of Form No. 32 raised disputed questions of fact requiring evidence. Those controversies could not be resolved in quashing proceedings, so the complaint was permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the petitioner had resigned as director before the cheque transaction and that his resignation and cessation from office raised a disputed question of fact.

Analysis: The petitioner relied on resignation from the company and contended that he was not in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of its business when the cheque was issued, dishonoured, and statutory notice was issued. The complainant disputed the resignation and maintained that the petitioner continued as a director, with the supporting corporate records and the filing of Form No. 32 being matters requiring evidence. The Court held that the genuineness and effect of the resignation, the acceptance of resignation by the company, and the timing and legal effect of filing Form No. 32 were all factual controversies that could not be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected, and the complaint was allowed to proceed against the petitioner.

---