JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the Directors of M/s Yerazig Impex Pvt. Ltd. They have been summoned as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, along with Arpit Jain, Director of the same Company. 2. A complaint was filed by M/s Pachranga International Private Limited against M/s Yerazig Impex Pvt. Ltd. as accused No.1 and Arpit Jain, Director of the Company along with petitioners as accused Nos.3 & 4 the earlier Directors of the accused Company. 3. The petitioners have, through the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., sought quashing of order dated 15.11.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat summoning the petitioners as accused along with other accused. The petitioners claim that they are neither the signatory of the cheque in dispute nor they are responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. 4. In the reply filed by the complainant-respondent it has been mentioned in para 12 that the cheques had been issued by Arpit Jain with the consent of the petitioners. 5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the respondent. It is settled principle of law that only that Director who is Incharge and responsible to the company for thie conoduct of the business as well as company can be held liable for the dishonour of the cheque. In this concern reference can be made to N.K. Wahi Vs. S.K. Khan and others, 2007 RCR (Crl.), 266. 6. There is no averment in the complaint as to how the petitioners are also responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. A perusal of the complaint indicates that vague allegations have been levelled that the petitioners are incharge of day to day affairs of the company and are responsible for the acts of the company but the cheque in dispute has neither been signed by any of the petitioners nor it is established from the preliminary evidence that the petitioners are also responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The reply filed before this Court indicates that the cheque had been issued by Arpit Jain, Director of the Company with the consent of the petitioners they being the other Directors. The reply filed before this Court indicates that the cheque had been issued by Arpit Jain, Director of the Company with the consent of the petitioners they being the other Directors. The said averment even if admitted would not warrant the prosecution of the petitioners especially when the petitioners are not the signatory of the cheque. The company and the Director have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 and are facing trial. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the prosecution against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not maintainable and is merely an abuse of the process of the Court. The complaint and the summoning order dated 4.12.2008, against the petitiones is hereby quashed. However, the proceedings against the company and the Director may continue, in accordance with law. 7. Disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------