https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104698 In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a director sought quashing under section 482 CrPC on the basis that his resignation and role in the company's affairs were disputed. The complaint expressly alleged that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business and that the cheque was issued with the instruction, knowledge, consent and connivance of the concerned directors. The HC held that disputed questions of fact, including whether the petitioner had resigned before the relevant time and whether he was actually in charge of the company's business, could not be resolved at the threshold in a section 482 petition. The quashing request was therefore dismissed. en-us Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:29:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104698 In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a director sought quashing under section 482 CrPC on the basis that his resignation and role in the company's affairs were disputed. The complaint expressly alleged that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business and that the cheque was issued with the instruction, knowledge, consent and connivance of the concerned directors. The HC held that disputed questions of fact, including whether the petitioner had resigned before the relevant time and whether he was actually in charge of the company's business, could not be resolved at the threshold in a section 482 petition. The quashing request was therefore dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104698