( 1 ) THE petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a3 and A4 in C. C. No. 1067/2001 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad, to quash the proceedings therein.

( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the petition are that the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against five accused alleging that they were carrying on business in Kirana Goods in the name and style of Oban Home Needs Limited, that they used to purchase kirana goods on credit basis from the complainant, that the complainant had a running ledger account in the name of A1, that A2 to A5, who were Directors of A1-company, took active part in the day-to-day business of A1-company, and they managed the whole business affairs of A-1 company, that they being aware of their liability issued cheques in the discharge of their debt to the complainant, that the cheques were returned unpaid with an endorsement that funds were insufficient, that thereupon the complainant got issued a demand notice on 29-6-2001 to the accused, that A1, A2 and A4 with mala fide intention got returned the postal covers, that A5 received the notice, that A3 sent a reply to the notice disowning his liability, and that the accused did not pay the amount covered by the cheques. The complaint was registered as C. C. No. 1067/2001. A3 and A4 therein filed the present petition to quash the proceedings.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners raised several contentions. I shall specify each of her contentions and my answer thereto in the subsequent paragraphs of this order.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners firstly contended that the complaint as filed is not maintainable, as Hansraj Bhati filed it in his individual capacity. On this aspect, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that Hansraj Bhati is the sole proprietor carrying on business in the name and style of Rampal Rajaram Bhati and it was specifically so mentioned in the cause-title of the complaint and hence there is no illegality in the 2nd respondent filing the complaint.

( 5 ) A cursory glance at the cause title of the complaint shows that Hansraj Bhati is the complainant. But when the entire cause-title is read carefully, it certainly reveals that the complaint was filed by M/s. Rampal Rajaram Bhati represented by Hansraj Bhati. Even in the very opening paragraph of the complaint, it was specifically stated that the complainant was the proprietor of his business concern carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Rampal Rajaram Bhati. In view of those clear allegations, there is no illegality in the description of the complainant in the cause-title of the complaint, which per se warrants the proceedings to be quashed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is rejected.

( 6 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not looking after the day-to-day affairs of A1-company, and that there was no allegation in the complaint that the offence alleged against the accused was committed with the consent or connivance of the petitioners. In support of her contention that a person could be proceeded against only if that person was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, she placed reliance upon K. P. G. Nair v. Jindal Menthol India Ltd. (2001) 10 SCC 218, and Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (2002) 7 SCC 655, wherein it was held that the partner of a firm was liable to be convicted for an offence committed by the firm if he was in charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm or if it was proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the partner concerned.

(