Quashing of complaint against a director rejected where sleeping-director status required factual proof and could not be decided summarily.

A director's plea that he was only a sleeping or non-active director, and had not participated in the company's affairs, raised factual questions that could not be decided at the quashing stage. The Delhi HC held that allegations concerning offences under the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, including wrongful availing of concessional import duty, had to be tested on evidence rather than in a summary challenge. It also treated the repeated attempt to quash the complaint on the same ground as an abuse of process. The complaint and summoning order were therefore not liable to be quashed against the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and summoning order could be quashed against a director on the ground that he was a non-active or sleeping director and had not ated in the affairs of the company.

Analysis: The complaint alleged offences under the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act in connection with wrongful availing of concessional import duty. The plea that the petitioner was not an active director and had not been involved in the company's business required examination of facts and evidence. Such questions could not be determined at the stage of quashing, especially when the alleged conduct related to the period of the complaint and the matter had already been pending for many years. The Court also treated the repeated attempt to quash on the same ground as an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed against the petitioner, and the challenge failed.

---