Arpita Madan Ghom v. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Bombay HC (Aurangabad Bench), Crl.App. 360/2023, order dated 26.03.2025 (Kankanwadi J.) — S.482 CrPC quashing of FIR Crime No.17/2022 (Ss.420, 406 r/w 34 IPC, P.S. Ausa, Latur) and R.C.C. No.406/2024 (JMFC Ausa) REJECTED. Key phrases: resignation of director; tendering vs acceptance; Registrar of Companies reflection 19.11.2021; Antarnad Industries Private Limited Akola; incense sticks machine scheme; agreement 10.03.2021; participation of ex-director in pre-resignation events; prima facie observations caveat. Useful to argue that a director who merely tenders resignation cannot obtain S.482 quashing where the fact and date of acceptance are unproved and she participated in the alleged transactions.
What did the court decide?
Tendering of resignation by itself will not absolve the applicant; what is determinative is the acceptance of the resignation by the company and its reflection or intimation to the Registrar of Companies.