https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387916 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. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:17:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387916 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387916