15.7.2026 SL No. 7 Ct No. 42 SB CRR 2570 of 2017 CRAN 3 /2020 (Old No. CRAN 199/2020) Mahabir Prasad Agarwal Vs. Manoj Kumar Jain 1. When this revisional application is called on for hearing, none appears to represent either the petitioner or the opposite party. No accommodation or prayer for adjournment is sought. 2. This revisional application has been languishing on the files of this Court since the year 2017. The records indicate that administrative notices were duly served upon the opposite party. Ample opportunities have been extended to the petitioner to appear and take necessary steps to prosecute this application. 3. The supreme indifference and reluctancy displayed by the parties are indicative of their total lack of interest in proceeding with this long-pending litigation. Litigants cannot treat the High Court’s revisional docket as a resting place for dormant disputes. Speedy trial is not a one-way street; it requires active cooperation from the seeker of justice. 4. Accordingly, I do not find it prudent to keep this matter pending any longer. I proceed to dispose of this application on merits, upon careful consideration of the materials available on record. 5. This revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioner, Mahabir Prasad Agarwal, praying for the quashing of the criminal proceedings being Case No. CS/0114932/16 (corresponding to T.R. No. 9733/16) pending before the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Calcutta. The petitioner stands arrayed as an accused in the said case for commission of offences punishable under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "N.I. Act"). 6. The prosecution sprouted from a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the opposite party, Manoj Kumar Jain, as the Director and Authorized Representative of Bloom Suppliers Private Limited. 7. The genesis of the complaint lies in a commercial transaction. The accused company, Sahul Finance Ltd., wherein the petitioner was allegedly a director, had taken a loan of ₹7,50,000/- from the complainant company. In discharge of its liability, the accused company issued an account payee cheque bearing No. 541790 dated 01.08.2016 drawn on United Bank of India, Old Court House Street Branch, Kolkata, in favour of the complainant. 8. Upon presentation, the cheque was returned unpaid on 14.09.2016 with the remark "Insufficient Funds". Despite the receipt of a statutory demand notice dated 20.09.2016, the accused persons, including the petitioner, failed to liquidate their debt within the statutory period of fifteen days. Consequently, the complainant set the criminal machinery in motion by filing the complaint on 26.10.2016. The Learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process under Section 204 of the Code. 9. A scrutiny of the revisional petition reveals that the petitioner seeks to derail the prosecution on two principal scores: First, that he had resigned from the post of Director of the accused company on 22.03.2016, as reflected in Form-32, which is long before the cheque in question was issued on 01.08.2016. He contends that he cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the N.I. Act. Second, that the allegations in the complaint against him are of an omnibus nature. He argues that the complainant has made mere bald, boilerplate statements without specifically spelling out how and in what manner he was responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the company’s business at the material time. 10. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent an abuse of the process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is a settled position of law that while dealing with an application for quashing of a complaint under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act, the High Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or critically appreciate disputed questions of fact. 11. Whether the petitioner had validly resigned and severed all connections with the accused company prior to the issuance of the cheque, and whether such resignation was formally accepted and registered in the statutory records of the Registrar of Companies in accordance with the law, are matters of defence to be established by the petitioner through cogent evidence before the trial court. Similarly, the veracity of the assertions in the complaint regarding the petitioner's direct role in managing and performing the day-to-day affairs of the accused company is a mixed question of fact and law. 12. A plain reading of the complaint shows that the complainant has specifically averred in Paragraph 3 that the accused persons, including the petitioner, are Directors/Managing Directors of the company, and are actively managing, performing, and are responsible for its day-to-day affairs. Furthermore, in Paragraph 6, it is averred that the accused persons had personally represented and assured that sufficient funds were available to honour the cheque. 13. At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Learned Magistrate is only required to see if a prima facie case is made out on the face of the complaint. The defence of resignation, based on documents of disputed or untested character, cannot be taken as gospel truth in a summary revision, especially when the parties have completely abandoned the proceedings before this Court and failed to establish any manifest perversity in the order of the trial court. 14. The materials on record do not disclose any such jurisdictional error, illegality, or gross perversity in the proceedings pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate as would shock the judicial conscience or warrant the extraordinary intervention of this Court under Section 482 of the Code. 15. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any irregularity, illegality, or impropriety in the proceeding being CS/0114932/16 (corresponding to T.R. No. 9733/16) pending before the Court of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Calcutta under Sections 138/141 of the N.I. Act. 16. The prayer for quashing of the said proceeding stands rejected. 17. Accordingly, the revisional application (C.R.R. 2570 of 2017) is disposed of, along with all connected applications, including CRAN 3/2020. 18. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. 19. The petitioner is directed to appear on each and every date of hearing before the Learned Court below. 20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities (Uday Kumar, J.)