USHA SANGHI Vs. GEORGE JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) Whether the complaints against the petitioners deserve to be quashed for the reason that sufficient averments are not there to attract liability under section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act hereafter)? (ii) Whether the non-compliance with the mandate of amended Section 202 cr. P. C. to necessarily conduct an enquiry before issuing process to an accused person residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, vitiates the cognizance taken in these cases? (iii) Whether the courts concerned have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints?

(2.) THESE questions are raised in these petitions where 2 of the 6 accused persons in identical complaints filed by the same complainant pending before two criminal courts seek invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the prosecution in so far as they relate to them.

(3.) TO the vital facts first. The complainant alleged that the 1 st accused, a company, had issued the cheques involved in these cases to him for the due discharge of a legally enforcible debt/liability. There is no contention that either of the petitioners had signed the cheques in question. It is alleged that they were directors of the company. There are averments which suggest that they have roles to play in the management and affairs of the company. All the complaints were filed along with affidavits under Section 145 Cr. P. C. in lieu of sworn statement under section 200 Cr. P. C. No enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. was conducted by the magistrates in all these cases. Cognizance was taken and process was issued against all the 6 accused persons including the petitioners herein who are accused 3 and 4 in all the prosecutions.