ORDER The petitioner, who is arrayed as third accused in C.C.No. 6091/2000 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, has filed this petition, to quash the proceedings against her, since even as per the averment in the complaint, no case has been made out. 2. The respondent as complainant summoned this petitioner and others to face the trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the cheque issued by them, to discharge the liability has not been honoured, when tendered for collection, that even after the issue of notice, as mandated under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused have failed to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque and therefore, all are liable to be dealt with accordingly. 3. The third accused, feeling aggrieved that she is unnecessarily impleaded as an accused, that too without any sufficient averments, has filed this petition, for dropping the proceedings against her. 4. The first accused is a firm, which is represented by the third accused. It seems A -3 to A -5 are the Directors of the first accused firm and A-6 & A-7 are the authorised signatories for the accused firm. Only in the cause title, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/the third accused, status of this petitioner and other accused are given. In the body of the complaint, I am unable to find any specific averments regarding the role played by this petitioner accused, as well as other accused also. Paragraph 4 of the complaint says that during the course of the business, during the financial year 1999-2000, the first accused has purchased synthetic rubber for a sum of Rs. 12,31,395/-. It further reads, the accused has effected payment in parts, promising to pa y the balance. It is the case of the petitioner, for the compliance of the amount, three cheques were issued. Nowhere it is stated how all the directors and more particularly, this petitioner is entitled to answer the claim of the complainant for the liability incurred by the first accused firm, though in the first accused firm, this petitioner was the director. 15. It is the case of the petitioner, for the compliance of the amount, three cheques were issued. Nowhere it is stated how all the directors and more particularly, this petitioner is entitled to answer the claim of the complainant for the liability incurred by the first accused firm, though in the first accused firm, this petitioner was the director. 15. Under Section 141, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if any offence was committed by the company, the person who was in-charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company alone, shall be held responsible and to attract that provision prima facie, at least there should be some allegations, which are absent. It is also not the complainant's case that this accused or the accused 1 & 2 committed offence with the consent or connivance of each. Whether she is an ordinary director or a director actively involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company, being the person incharge of the same, since no averments are made in the petition, taking cognizance of the offence against this petitioner, appears to be against the provisions of law and by allowing the petitioner to face the trial, no useful purpose could be served, since even taking the allegations as such, it would not lead to the culmination of conviction. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent is also unable to say from the pleadings how the petitioner/third accused is liable to be prosecuted, in the absence of the specific averments. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is an old lady and has retired from the Post of Director on 3-5-2000 and therefore, at present, when the cheques were not honoured, she was not responsible and in this view also, compelling her to face the prosecution is unwarranted. 8. As aforementioned, there are no allegations against this petitioner and it not the case of the complainant, despite the fact, this Director resigned the post due to some other actual involvement, she is liable to pay the amount or something like that. To buttress the fact that this petitioner resigned from the first accused company, Form 32 is produced, which would indicate that this petitioner resigned on 3-5-2000. To buttress the fact that this petitioner resigned from the first accused company, Form 32 is produced, which would indicate that this petitioner resigned on 3-5-2000. Thus, not only at present, but also at the time of the issuing of the cheques, this petitioner had no interest in the first accused Company and in this view, the non-payment of the cheque amount by the petitioner, would not give cause of action for the complainant, to prosecute this petitioner, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Viewing the case from any angle, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that, the proceedings against this petitioner is devoid of merits and it seems, it is an abuse of process of law and therefore, the proceedings against her should be dropped. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings against this petitioner is dropped.