P.V. Sanjay Kumar JUDGMENT
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal by Accused No. 4 in the complaint filed by the Respondent herein Under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the NI Act') is directed against the order dated 06.12.2019 in CRM-M No. 52299 of 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. As per the impugned order the High Court declined to quash the complaint qua the Appellant in exercise of the power Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.PC').
3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
4. Virtually, the Appellant set up twin grounds to seek quashment of the complaint against him; firstly, that he had resigned from the partnership firm on 28.05.2013 whereas the cheque in question was issued on 21.08.2015 and secondly, that the complaint is devoid of mandatory averments required to be made in terms of Sub-section 1 of Section 141 of the NI Act, as relates him. The High Court found that the contention in regard to the maintainability of the complaint against the Appellant, owing to his retirement from the partnership firm prior to the issuance of the cheque in question, is a matter of evidence and ultimately, the Appellant would have to lead evidence and prove that fact. Consequently, it was held that the complaint could not be rejected qua the Appellant at the initial stage in exercise of the powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even if it is taken that the factum of his retirement from the partnership firm on 28.5.2013 was prior to the cheque in question on 21.8.2015 is a matter of evidence, the complaint as against the Appellant is liable to be quashed owing to the absence of mandatory averments required to be made in terms of Section 141(1) of the NI Act, in the complaint. In other words, it is submitted that though the Respondent had specified or elaborated the role of some of the Accused in the complaint as relates the Appellant averments elaborating/specifying his role in the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm much-less mandatorily required averments for his prosecution are conspicuously absent in the complaint. To drive home the contentions that the learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to paragraphs 3 to 6 of the complaint. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the decisions of this Court in Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council and Anr. 
MANU/SC/1323/2011 : (2012) 1 SCC 520 and a decision of Two-Judge Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2023 titled Ashok Shewakramani and Ors. v. State o........