The petitioner, Pranab Biswas, sought quashing of a cheque dishonour complaint (Case No. C/3213/2022) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. The complaint arose from a dishonoured cheque of Rs. 51,00,000/- issued by Abhijata Construction Pvt. Ltd. towards refund of a flat purchase amount, but the petitioner contended he had resigned as an Independent Director of the company in August 2018, nearly four years before the cheque was issued or dishonoured in 2022, and had no role in the transaction. The Calcutta High Court examined the settled legal position that mere designation as a Director is insufficient to attract vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the NI Act, and that a complaint must contain specific averments showing the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. The court found that the complaint contained no such specific allegations against the petitioner, neither attributing any role in the transaction, the issuance of the cheque, nor any overt act connecting him to the offence. Accordingly, the court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was wholly unjustified.