HIRAN VENUGOPALAN Vs. INDIRA JYOTHI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.6594/2015 is accused No.3 for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.339/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court (Mobile), Ernakulam, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1 st respondent herein. Whereas the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.5373/2017 is accused No.4 for the same offence in the abovesaid complaint. Both the petitioners would seek quashment of the impugned complaint, which led to the institution of C.C.No.339/2014 on the file of the abovesaid trial court. In both the Crl.M.Cs, Anx.A-I is the copy of the impugned complaint.

(2.) Heard Sri.K.M.Ameer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.6594/2015, Sri.P.B.Ajoy, learned counsel appearing for R-1 (complainant), who appears for R-2 in Crl.M.C.No.5373/2017. Though notice has been duly served on R-2 and R-3 in Crl.M.C.No.6594/2015 (who are accused 1 and 2), both parties have not entered appearance. Heard Sri.A.Jayasankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 5373/2017 and Sri.P.B.Ajoy, learned counsel appearing for R-2 (complainant) in that petition. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor has appeared for the respondent State in both these petitions. Sri.N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General, who appeared on behalf of additional R-6 (ROC, Kerala) in Crl.M.C.No. 6594/2015 has also been heard.

(3.) The basic case set up in the impugned Anx.A-1 complaint is that the cheque issued in favour of the complainant dated 15.1.2014 for Rs.1,75,000/- has been dishonoured as per memo dated 17.1.2014. It is stated that the said cheque has been drawn from the account maintained by accused No.1 company and that accused No.2 is the signatory of the said cheque. It is further stated that accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are Directors of the 1 st accused company and from 24.9.2013, they are conducting the business of the firm and conducting the day to day affairs of the 1 st accused firm. The petitioners in these Crl.M.Cs. would contend that they have never been appointed as Directors of the abovesaid company either before 24.9.2013 or thereafter, and that the allegation in the complaint that they were Directors of the 1 st accused company, who were conducting the business of the firm and conducting its day to day affairs, is totally incorrect and wrong and that there were no materials whatsoever before the learned Magistrate to proceed against these two petitioners (A-3 and A-4) on the premise that they were Directors who were in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the company as envisaged in Sec.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is urged that the very action of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance against the petitioners is illegal and improper and further that the complaint is liable to be quashed in the light of the legal principles laid down by this Court in various decisions.