R RAMACHANDRAN Vs. YERAM SESHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they raise an identical point for decision.

(2.) For purposes of convenience that facts in Criminal Petition No. 5145. of 1996 are only stated. It is alleged that the first respondent was doing cotton business. He is the managing partner of the firm, Yerram Sesha Reddy and Company. The petitioner is the chairman of Ravindra Mills Limited, Coimbatore. The petitioner issued a cheque dated September 23, 1995, for a particular sum on Bank of Baroda of which the main branch is at Coimbatore. The cheque was in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent presented the cheque in his account with his banker. However, after due advice, the cheque in his account with his banker. However, after due advice, the cheque was returned with the endorsement that the drawer had stopped the payment. This was on 25/10/1995. Thereafter, the first respondent, after following the procedure of issuing notice, etc., as required by the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), filed a complaint which was registered as criminal case on the file on the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Paruchur. It was for an offence under section 138 of the Act. The petitioner appeared in pursuance of the summons and requested by appropriate petition that the proceedings be dropped against him. One of the grounds, alleged in the said petition to drop the proceedings, was that the prosecution was initiated only against the petitioner without impleading the company as accused. The prosecution was not maintainable as against the petitioner alone. Unless the company is also named as an accused, the prosecution is not maintainable. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition by his order dated 3/09/1996.

(3.) The petitioner has now come here seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against him on the ground that unless the company is made co-accused, the prosecution is not maintainable. The proceedings, being not maintainable against him alone, should be quashed. As pointed out already the other two petitions raise an identical point. The parties are same. Only the cheques are different and for different sums. However, the transactions are similar.