Judgment S. S. Nijjar, J. 1. This petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure code, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with a prayer for quashing the complaint dated 6th January, 1999 (Annexure P-9), the summoning order dated 9th March (Annexure P-10) and further proceedings pending in the Court of Sh. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gohana. 2. Respondent No.2 is a Company incorporated under Sec.149 (3)of the Companies Act, 1956 on 15th April, 1997. Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 were the first Directors of the Company. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the subscribers of the Company. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 resigned from the directorship of the Company on 11th February, 1998. Petitioner nos.2, 6 and 7 have also resigned. This Company floated various schemes as provided under Articles of Association permissible under the law to promote the commercial activities. The Company has acquired land in sonepat District of Haryana and also in U. P. These lands were used for cultivation of eucalyptus trees. The respondents deposited a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- with the Company on 1st October, 1997. Petitioner No.1, the then director of the Company, issued post-dated Cheque No.342356, dated 1.10.1998 for a sum of Rs.1,12,500/-. On presentation of the cheque, the same was dishonoured. Intimation of dishonour was given by the respondents on 28th October, 1998. The present complaint has been filed on 6th January, 1999. Prior to the filing of the complaint, legal notice was given on 5th november, 1998. This was received by the petitioners on 7th November, 1998. Therefore, the complaint could have been filed till 22nd December, 1998. Mr. Bansal submits that these proceedings are liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint as the same has been filed beyond the period of intimation under section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter refered to as "the Act" ). 3. A perusal of Sec.142 of the Act shows that no Court can take cognizance any offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the complaint is filed within month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Clause (c) of the proviso to Sec.138 of the Act. The cause of action arises on the expiry of 15 days of the date of receipt of the notice given under Sec.138 of the Act. The cause of action arises on the expiry of 15 days of the date of receipt of the notice given under Sec.138 of the Act. As noticed above, notice was given on 15th November, 1998 (5th November?) which was received on 7th November, 1998. Therefore, cause of action arose on 22nd of November, 1998. The complaint, if any to have been filed on or before 22nd December, 1998. The present complaint admitedly filed on 6th January, 1999. On that date the magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to cognizance of the complaint. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the proceedings have to be quashed on this short ground. In view of the fact that the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation, the complaint cannot be permitted to proceed any further. 4. Mr. Bansal has also submitted that the present petitioners had resigned from directorship at a time when the cheque was dishonoured. Therefore, further proceedings against them cannot continue. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel. The liability under Section 138 of the Act arises against a person who signs or issues cheque which is subsequently dishonoured. Merc averment to the effect that subsequent the petitioners have resigned, would not be sufficient to quash the complaint the summoning order. Veracity of the averment will depend on the evidence produced at trial. 5. Mr. R. S. Hooda, Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the complaint is not being prosecuted only under Sec.138 of the act. The petitioners are being prosecuted for various offences under Sections 420, 467, 471, 470 read with Sec.12 of the Indian Penal code. A perusal of the summoning order, however, shows that complaint has been filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , read with Sec.142 of the Act. The petitioners have also been summoned only under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The summoning order dated 9th march, 1999 been placed on record today. It is submitted by Mr. Bansal that annexure P-10 which attracted with the petition has been wrongly attached in place of the actual summoning order. The summoning order Annexure p-10 is taken on record in substitution of the Annexure P-10. Since the complaint has been clearly filed beyond the period of limitation the proceedings cannot be permitted to continue. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Bansal that annexure P-10 which attracted with the petition has been wrongly attached in place of the actual summoning order. The summoning order Annexure p-10 is taken on record in substitution of the Annexure P-10. Since the complaint has been clearly filed beyond the period of limitation the proceedings cannot be permitted to continue. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioners including Annexure P-1 are hereby quashed the petitioners. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to file fresh complaint under Sections 4, 120b, 467, 468, 470 and 471, IPC, if so, advised. No relief can be granted to respondent No.3 who is accused No.9 in the complaint in the present proceedings. He is at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings. No costs. Petition allowed.