Director liability in cheque dishonour complaints: disputed role as independent director must be tested at trial, not quashed early.

A complaint under Section 138 NI Act was not quashed where it contained specific averments that the accused director was involved in the company's core functioning and business affairs. The record also showed his consent to act as a director and reflected his name in Form DIR-12, creating disputed questions about the nature of his appointment and actual role. Those issues could not be finally resolved in Section 482 CrPC proceedings and had to be decided at trial on evidence. Interference with the Magistrate's order issuing process was therefore declined, and the complaint was permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the issuance of process in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a director could be quashed on the ground that he was only an independent director and had no role in the company's day-to-day affairs.

Analysis: The complaint contained specific allegations that the applicant, along with other accused, was involved in the core functioning of the company and was responsible for its business affairs at the relevant time. The record also contained material showing that the applicant had consented to act as a director and that his name appeared in Form DIR-12 as a director. In these circumstances, the nature of his appointment and the extent of his involvement in the company's affairs raised disputed questions of fact that could not be inarily resolved in proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Those questions were left for trial and appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order issuing process was not made out, and the complaint was allowed to proceed against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: Interference with the Magistrate's order was declined, and the criminal applications were dismissed, leaving the parties to establish their respective contentions before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint contains specific averments of responsibility and the supporting material prima facie shows the accused as a director, the question whether he was only an independent director and lacked control over the company's affairs is a matter for trial and not for quashing at the threshold.

---