Petitioner's Resignation Quashes Section 138 Proceedings, Emphasizing Specific Allegations

The court quashed the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner, who had resigned from directorship before the issuance of the cheques. The court held that the petitioner's resignation absolved him from vicarious liability, emphasizing the need for specific allegations in complaints to establish such liability. The court allowed the criminal revision, referencing similar cases and stressing the importance of preventing injustice or abuse of process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Vicarious liability of a director who has resigned before the issuance of the cheques.
3. Adequacy of complaint allegations regarding the director's role in the company.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Siliguri, in CR case No. 559 of 2021. The petitioner contended that he had resigned from the directorship of the company on 13th March 2020, and thus, could not be held liable for the cheques issued subsequently.

2. Vicarious liability of a director who has resigned before the issuance of the cheques:
The petitioner argued that he had resigned from the directorship on 13th March 2020, as evidenced by Form DIR-12 and documents from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The cheques in question were issued after his resignation, and hence, he could not be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Harshendra Kumar D., Pooja Ravinder Devidasani, and other cases, which established that a director could not be held liable if he was not in charge of the company's affairs at the time the offence was committed.

3. Adequacy of complaint allegations regarding the director's role in the company:
The court noted that the complaint only contained a cursory statement that the petitioner was a director and in charge of the company's day-to-day activities. The court emphasized that specific allegations detailing the director's role and responsibility in the company's affairs are necessary to establish vicarious liability. The court found that the complaint lacked such specific averments and thus did not meet the requirements set by Section 141 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner had resigned from the directorship before the issuance of the cheques and was not involved in the company's affairs at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioner could not be held liable under Section 138 of the Act. The court allowed the criminal revision, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in CR case No. 559 of 2021. The court also referenced similar cases where proceedings were quashed under comparable circumstances. The judgment emphasized the necessity of specific allegations in the complaint to establish vicarious liability and the importance of preventing injustice or abuse of process by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---