Cheque dishonour company liability: resignation dispute and role in business required trial, so summoning order was sustained.

In a cheque dishonour complaint, quashing of the summoning order was declined because the petitioner's claimed resignation as director before issuance and dishonour of the cheque was not established with certainty. Company liability under the cheque dishonour framework turns on whether a person was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, or whether consent, connivance, or neglect is shown. The resignation documents, MCA entries, and absence of a board resolution were insufficient to show, at the threshold, that she had ceased to be associated with the company's affairs. The disputed date and effectiveness of resignation, and her role in the company, were left for trial, and the summoning order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order in the cheque dishonour complaint should be quashed under the inherent and supervisory jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner had resigned as director before issuance and dishonour of the cheque, and whether the materials placed showed that she was not in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the company's business.

Analysis: The complaint was examined in the light of the statutory scheme governing cheque dishonour and company liability. Liability under the provision dealing with offences by companies depends on whether the person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time, or whether consent, connivance, or neglect is shown. The resignation documents, MCA entries, and absence of a board resolution did not establish with certainty that the petitioner had ceased to be a director before the cheque transaction and subsequent dishonour. The dispute regarding the actual date and effectiveness of resignation, and the petitioner's role in the company's affairs, was held to require trial. The materials on record were not of the sterling or unimpeachable kind needed to justify quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The petition for quashing was rejected and the summoning order was sustained.

---