Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

b) If a petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of such a complaint by the Director, the High Court may, in the facts of a particular case, on an overall reading of the complaint, refuse to quash the complaint because the complaint contains the basic averment which is sufficient to make out a case against the Director.

c) In the facts of a given case, on an overall reading of the complaint, the High Court may, despite the presence of the basic averment, quash the complaint because of the absence of more particulars about role of the Director in the complaint. It may do so having come across some unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of the process of the court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a conclusion that no case is made out against the Director. Take for instance a case of a Director suffering from a terminal illness who was bedridden at the relevant time or a Director who had resigned long before issuance of cheques. In such cases, if the High Court is convinced that prosecuting such a Director is merely an arm-

wp196com twisting tactics, the High Court may quash the proceedings. It bears repetition to state that to establish such case unimpeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or some totally acceptable circumstances will have to be brought to the notice of the High Court. Such cases may be few and far between but the possibility of such a case being there cannot be ruled out. In the absence of such evidence or circumstances, complaint cannot be quashed;

17] Thus, the legal position is to the effect that if the directors are to be brought within the purview of section 141 of the N.I.Act, there must be a basic averment made in the complaint that the said Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed. If such a basic averment is made in the complaint, then, the Magistrate can issue process against him. If any petition is filed under section 482 of the Code for quashing of the complaint by the Director, the High Court may in the facts of the particular case on a over all reading of the complaint refuse to wp196com quash the complaint because the complaint contains basic averment which is sufficient to make out a case against the Director. One exception is made thereto and it pertains to a case when the High Court comes across some unimeachable, uncontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of the process of the court. In that situation only, the High Court may, in its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. quash the process. The Supreme Court has illustrated two such situations. One when the Director is suffering with terminal illness and, therefore, bedridden at the relevant time or when the Director had resigned long before issuance of the cheque. The Supreme Court has also made it clear that the High Court can use its inherent power of quashing the process under section 482 of the Code sparingly and with great circumspection to prevent inter alia abuse of the process of court. Therefore, the High Court at this stage can not conduct mini trial or roving inquiry, though nothing prevents it from taking some unimpeachable evidence or totally acceptable circumstances into account which may lead it to conclude that no trial is necessary. In that eventuality, the High Court may quash the process.

22] In view of these facts on record and when the tendering of resignation by accused No.9 - petitioner is a disputed question of fact, it cannot be said that there is any unimpeachable or uncontroverted evidence to prove that accused No.9 has resigned long before issuance of cheque or there is uncontrovertible evidence to prove that he was no more a director in the company at the time of issuance of cheques. The very fact of his resignation from the Board of Directors of the company being in dispute, evidence is required to be laid to prove it. Therefore, as held by the Apex Court in the aforestated case of Gunmala Sales, since wp196com there is no unimpeachable and uncontrovertible evidence on record which can be called as beyond suspicion or doubt, this court should be slow and refuse to exercise its discretion in quashing of the complaint.