Crl.O.P.No.22624 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.09.2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.22624 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.15465 of 2025 Baby Chitra ... Petitioner Vs. Mohammed Hussain ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to quash the complaint in S.T.C. No.1189 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Fast Track Judge-IV/Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, Chennai as against the petitioner/accused-3. For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Raveendhren For Respondent : Mr.J.Preetam O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the complaint in S.T.C. No.1189 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Fast Track Judge-IV/Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, Chennai as against the petitioner/accused-3. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22624 of 2025 2. The contention of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was originally appointed as a Director of A1/company on 22.03.2017, within a period of two weeks, she resigned as a Director on 06.04.2017 itself which has been clearly intimated in the reply notice. Further, in the entire complaint, there is no specific averment regarding the role of the petitioner, except stating she was a Director of A1/company. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that A1/company is a Family Oriented Company. After complying with the statutory requirements, the complaint has been filed by the defacto complainant for return of cheque for the reasons 'Refer to drawer', issued for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. 4. According to the petitioner the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the respondent and issued the subject cheque towards repayment of the same. Except stating that the petitioner/A3 is the Director in A1- Company, the respondent has nowhere stated that she was in-charge for the day to day affairs of A1-company. Be that as it may, the statutory forum of the A1-Company has not been disputed. It is seen that the present petitioner has resigned from A1-Company on 06.04.2017 itself, much prior to issuance of the subject cheque. In such view of the matter, the complaint as against the petitioner/A3 cannot be made out. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22624 of 2025 5. Hence, the complaint against the petitioner/A3 in S.T.C. No.1189 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Fast Track Judge- IV/Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, Chennai, is quashed. 6. The complaint against the other accused/A1 and A2 shall be proceeded further in accordance with law. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the complaint against A1 and A2 expeditiously. 04.09.2025 ksa-2 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No To The Fast Track Judge-IV/Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, Chennai 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22624 of 2025 N. SATHISH KUMAR , J. ksa-2 Crl.O.P.No.22624 of 2025 04.09.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis