Quashing under Section 482 CrPC refused where allegations linked a director to the transaction and factual defences were left for trial.

A quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC was rejected because the complaint and supporting materials contained allegations linking the petitioner, a director, to the transaction. Her claim that she was not responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs raised a factual defence that could not be decided at the quashing stage. The Court applied the settled principle that disputed questions of fact and defence material are ordinarily left for trial, and the accused may raise those contentions before the trial court. The criminal proceedings were therefore permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint against the petitioner was liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers on the ground that she was only a director and not shown to be in charge of the day to day affairs of the company.

Analysis: The complaint and the materials placed before the Court disclosed allegations connecting the petitioner with the transaction, and the contention that she was not responsible for the conduct of the company's business raised a defence that could be examined at trial. At the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such disputed matters were not to be adjudicated. The Court applied the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings and held that the accused could raise her defence before the trial court.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was not maintainable on the facts presented and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---