NATHAN INDUSTRIES Vs. M ARULSELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in these petitions is to call for the records in C. C. Nos. 55 and 56 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pondicherry, and quash the same in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, states that he is not pressing the above petitions for petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 and he would make his submissions only with reference to petitioner No. 4 viz. , F. Marie Susairaj. By referring to the following portions from the complaint viz. , '. . . A1 to A4 are partners in charge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the partnership firm' and 'all the accused are in charge and responsible for the day to day administration and affairs of the partnership firm', he submits that excepting such general averments, no specific allegation has been made against petitioner No. 4; in such circumstances, this is a fit case where the proceedings against the 4th petitioner are liable to be quashed on the ground that the complaint lacks material particulars to proceed against her. A. To substantiate such contention, learned counsel relied on a decision of the supreme court in S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , vs. Neeta Bhalla and another (2007 (4) SCC 70) wherein, it has been observed thus:-

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the name of the fourth petitioner has been mentioned in the complaint and allegations are made to the effect that all the four accused of the partnership firm, who were in charge of the day to day affairs of the partnership firm, committed the offence.