P SUDHAVENKATA LAKSHMI Vs. CHAKRA COTTON COMPANY REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Chakra Cotton Company filed four cases under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act) against Akshaya Textiles Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company) and its Directors in connection with the bouncing of cheques issued to it, after issuing statutory notices of demand after dishonour. They were taken on file and summonses were issued to the Company and its Directors. These petitions are filed by P. Sudhavenkata Lakshmi, one of the accused in these cases, for quashing the complaints against her, contending that she is not the Director of the Company and is implicated in the case only because she happens to be the wife of the Managing Director of the Company, and as she is of indifferent health.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is not a Director in the Company and since she is implicated in the case only because she is the wife of the Managing Director of the Company, prosecution against her is liable to be quashed. He relied on G.S. Prabhavathi Peti Vs. N. Subrahmanyeswara Rao1 and also on Janaki Manoharan v. Gayatri Sugar Complex Ltd. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant (first respondent in these petitions) is that the specific averment in the complaint is that all the Directors of the Company are in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company and the cheques issued with knowledge of the consequences of issuing cheque without funds, and since the petitioner has not produced even a scrap of paper into Court to show that she is not a Director of the Company, and since a complaint cannot be quashed merely on the averments in the petition filed under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. but has to be decided on the basis of the averments in the complaint itself, there are no grounds to quash the complaints.

(3.) The two decisions, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have no application to the facts of this case. In G.S. Prabhavathi Peti's case (1 supra) the complaint was filed against the wife of the drawer of the cheque also on the ground that the car, with the money borrowed, was purchased in her name. Holding that prosecution can be launched against the persons who drew the cheque only and no other person can be prosecuted except in the circumstances mentioned in Sec.141 of the Act, prosecution of the wife of the drawer of the cheque for its dishonour, on the ground that the amount borrowed from the complainant was utilized for the purchase of car in her name is not sustainable. In this case the specific case of the complainant is that petitioner also is one of the Directors of the Company and is in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company and, therefore, is liable for punishment under Sec.138 of the Act by virtue of Sec.141 of the Act.