1. All the petitions arise from the common factual aspects and a common question of law is involved. Therefore, all the matters are taken up together to pass a common order.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in CC Nos.34297/2014, 33139/2014, 33141/2014 and 33288/2014 respectively, as he is one of the Director of M/s. Shri Durga Trade Links Pvt. Ltd.,.

3. The above said Criminal cases are filed by M/s. Carmel Jyothi Trust, (respondent in CRL.P. No.2044/2015); M/s.Benedectine Sisters of St. Lioba Sadan Society (respondent in CRL.P. No.2045/2015); M/s. Educational Society of the Brothers of St. Patrick (respondent in CRL.P. No.2046/2015); and the Society of the Franciscan Servants of Mary (respondent in CRL.P. No.2047/2015), lodged the complaint u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. making allegations that the petitioner has committed an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In all the above said Criminal Cases, M/s.Durga Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., Company is the first accused and petitioner is accused No.3.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, has approached this court for quashing of the entire proceedings on the ground that there is no allegations of whatsoever which attract Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. Therefore, such complaint cannot be proceeded against him.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the records.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a strict compliance of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act is required. Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act says that if a complaint is lodged against a company, if any of the Directors are made as parties, there must be specific allegations against such Director about his activities in the company and also the role played by him with regard to the day to day affairs of the company. If no such pleadings are there, there cannot be any further proceedings against such Director.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent in all the cases argued before this court that, there is sufficient allegations in the complaint to show the exact role of the petitioner herein and it is specifically alleged that the accused persons including the petitioner have been running the Company i.e., M/s. Shri Durga Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., and they have jointly issued the cheque for repayment of the legally enforceable debt. Therefore, all the Directors are also liable for the prosecution.

8. Before adverting to the factual aspects of the case as pleaded in the complaint, it is just and necessary to bear in mind the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are relevant to be quoted here. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the relevant provision which reads thus:

“141. Offences by Companies – (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Provided xxxx”

Sub clause (2) of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically says that –

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), if any allegations are made against the Company and if it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or in connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence. Therefore, in order to prove the said offence, there must be a specific allegations in the complaint which attract the above said provisions.”

In this backg