BIJU-BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner/ accused in S.T. No. 1998/2014 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -V, Kozhikode, to quash the proceedings under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is arrayed as sole accused in S.T. No. 1998/2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -V, Kozhikode, alleging offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution case was that, the complainant is running an advertising agency and the accused who is engaged in manufacture of footwear is one of their customers and to develop the business, the accused ordered the complainant to advertise through television and newspaper and in that transaction, there was an amount of Rs. 2,05,058/ - was due. According to the complainant accused issued cheque No. 024126 dated 05.10.2003 for Rs. 1,00,000/ - and another cheque No. 024129 dated 05.11.2013 for a sum of Rs. 1,05,058/ -, both drawn on Federal Bank, Baypore, Branch, Kozhikode, in favour of the complainant. When the cheques were presented for collection through the bank of the complainant, the same were dishonoured for the reasons 'funds insufficient'. Notice was issued to the accused and since he did not pay the amount, Annexure -A1 complaint was filed. Originally it was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Coimbatore. Later it was returned to be presented before proper court having jurisdiction that is Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -V, Kozhikode. Accordingly it was represented and renumbered as S.T. No. 1998/2014. The petitioner is the Managing Director of the company called M/s. Prestige Polymer Products. The complainant is a sole proprietorship concern and the petitioner and the company having separate legal entity. In view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Aneeta Hada & Others v/s. M/s. Godfather Travels [ : 2012 KHC 4244 (SC)], without impleading the company, no complaint is maintainable against the director of the company alone. So proceeding with the case is nothing but an abuse of process of court and he filed this writ petition to quash the proceedings. Hence the petition.

(3.) Heard Sri. S. Rajeev, counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri. P. Narayanan, counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri. Jibu P. Thomas, Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent/ State.