Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner-Ram Singh, who is Director of M/s. Crystal Phosphate Limited has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint dated October 14, 1998 and all the consequential proceedings taken thereupon. The complaint has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the present petition. 2. As per averments made in the complaint, the Fertilizer Inspector visited the shop of M/s. Vijay Kumar Satish Kumar. The aforesaid firm was carrying on the business of fertilizer manufactured by the Company M/s. Crystal Phosphate Limited. A sample of some fertilizer was taken and on analysis, the same was found to be sub-standard and in contravention of clause 19(1) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and, therefore, there was a contravention of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . Consequently, a complaint dated October 14, 1998 was filed by the Fertilizer Inspector against Ram Singh (the present petitioner). 3. The main ground upon which the complaint is sought to be quashed by the petitioner is that while filing the complaint the manufacturing company namely M/s. Crystal Phosphate Limited was not arrayed as a co-accused. On that basis, it is submitted that the complaint under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with the Fertilizer Control Order itself was not maintainable. 4. Sh. Arun Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the absence of the company as a co-accused, the complaint against the present petitioner Ram Singh who was the Director of the Company who not maintainable and to support the aforesaid submission, he has relied upon S.H. Chisty v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent C.R. 565, Suresh Chand Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Cases 696 and a judgment of this Court in N.K. Kakkar and others v. State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No. 10011-M of 1997 decided on August 1, 2002. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the submissions made by Sh. Arun Chandra have merit and deserve to succeed. 6. I have perused the complaint and find that the company M/s. Crystal Phosphates Limited was not arrayed as a co-accused, and, therefore, in the absence of the aforesaid company, the complaint could not be filed against Ram Singh who was merely a Director of the company. Arun Chandra have merit and deserve to succeed. 6. I have perused the complaint and find that the company M/s. Crystal Phosphates Limited was not arrayed as a co-accused, and, therefore, in the absence of the aforesaid company, the complaint could not be filed against Ram Singh who was merely a Director of the company. My view finds full support by the judgments in the case of S.H. Chisty v. State of Haryana (supra), N.K. Kakkars case (supra) and Suresh Chand Sharmas case (supra). 7. In the result, the present petition is allowed and the complaint Annexure P-1 qua the petitioner is hereby quashed. 8. It is made clear that the quashing of the complaint against the present petitioner Ram Singh would have absolutely no bearing or effect upon the continuation thereof, against the remaining accused. 9. Since the matter has remained pending in this court for sufficiently long time, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than December 31, 2003. Petition allowed.