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 S.138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act hereafter)

(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 S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the prosecution insofar as they relate to them.

(3.) To the vital facts first. The complainant alleged that the 1st 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 S.145 CrPC in lieu of sworn statement under S.200 CrPC. No enquiry under S.202 CrPC 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.