B. K. RATHI, J. Heard Sri P. N. Mishra, Senior Advocate Assisted by Sri Apul Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA. 2. The applicant was one of the Directors of the Finance Company M/s. Schematic Finance Ltd. The deposits were taken from various persons by the Company and agreed to return with interest and issued post dated cheques. However, the company closed the office of Meerut and flee away from the city. Therefore, the opposite parties filed similar complaints for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the applicant and other Directors of the company in which they have been summoned. 3. Request has been made for quashing of the complaints filed by the depositors. The points involved in all these petitions are identical and therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Firstly, it is contended that the applicant is member of the Delhi Stock Exchange and according to the terms of membership the applicant cannot work as whole time Director. However, there is no bar in becoming part time Director of the Finance Company and even if he was part time director, it is not material. 5. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has resigned from the Directorship and his resignation was accepted on 23-5-1998 by Registrar of Companies, that therefore, he is not liable for prosecution which has been lodged afterwards. 6. The deposits were taken and post dated cheques were issued at the time when the applicant was Director of the Company. Therefore, the fact that he subsequently resigned from the Directorship is not material and he is not absolved of the responsibility. On the other hand, after taking deposits and misappropriating the money the resignation by the Director is a noble method to facilitate the cheating and to avoid the responsibility. For this reason also the proceedings against him cannot be quashed. 7. The next argument of the learned Counsel is that the company has gone into liquidation which is pending before the Delhi High Court in accordance with the Scheme of the Reserve Bank of India. However, it does not absolve the Directors of the criminal liability. Only the suit for recovery may not lie. 8. The Company after taking deposits have applied for liquidation. However, it does not absolve the Directors of the criminal liability. Only the suit for recovery may not lie. 8. The Company after taking deposits have applied for liquidation. Therefore, the poor depositors cannot recover their hard earned money by recourse to the civil proceedings. If the criminal proceedings are also stayed, the depositors should also be advised to commit suicide. No doubt, by criminal proceedings the depositors cannot get back their money, but atleast they have satisfaction that the person who has cheated them are being prosecuted and are not enjoying money comfortably. 9. Considering the circumstances, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The deposits were taken by the Company on assurance to pay the amount with interest and thereby cheated the depositors. 10. The petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .