1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the proceedings in the criminal complaint lodged by the respondent no.1 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate 33rd Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The proceedings are numbered as CC No.1194/SS/2015.

2. The brief facts alleged in the complaint are as follows:

(a) The accused no.1 is a private limited company of whom accused no.2 is the authorized signatory and C.F.O. while accused no.3 is the signatory to the subject cheque. The accused nos.4 and 5 are the directors of accused no.1.

(b) The accused nos. 2 to 5 are looking after day to day affairs of accused no.1. Accused nos.2, 4 and 5 have dealt with the complainant company in respect to subject transaction of the complaint in terms of consideration aspect. Accused nos.2 to 5 in connivance with each other have committed the offence by intentionally dishonouring the subject cheque.

(c) The accused no.1 through accused nos.2, 4 and 5 had approached the complainant company for publication of an advertisement in the news paper for publication of accused no.1 in the news paper, “KHALEEJ TIMES”, Dubai on 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd November, 2014.

(d) On instructions from accused no.1 through accused nos.2, 4, and 5, the complainant company have fulfilled their obligations by publishing the advertisement on behalf of accused no.1 in the news paper “KHALEEJ TIMES”, Dubai. The complainant, thereafter, raised the invoices bearing no.215912 dated 24th November, 2014 for Rs.6,84,250/-, 215916 dated 24th November, 2014 for Rs.2,97,500/- and 215918 dated 24th November, 2014 for Rs.4,16,500/-.

(e) Towards discharge of liability against the aforesaid invoices, the accused issued At Par Cheque bearing no.138703 dated 13th January, 2015 for Rs.13,70,286/- drawn on Axis Bank Limited in favour of complainant company.

(f) The complainant presented the aforesaid cheques for encashment with their bankers, viz. BNP Paribas, Mumbai on 24th February, 2015. The said cheque was dishonoured and returned to the complainant along with bank memo with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

(g) The complainant issued notice of demand under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The notice dated 25th March, 2015 was dispatched by Registered Post A.D. to the accused. All the accused have received the legal notice on 30th March, 2015.

(h) Inspite of the receipt of notice accused failed and neglected to pay dishonoured cheque amount. Hence, the complaint was filed before the aforesaid Court on 14th May, 2015.

3. On 9th July, 2015, the verification statement was recorded. The affidavit in compliance of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was filed. On 10th July, 2015 the process was issued against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was observed while issuing the process that verification statement of the complainant is recorded. The accused being resident of place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is held. The complaint filed in furtherance of allegations made in the complaint. Since the applicant was not attending the proceedings after service of summons, the complainant preferred an application for issuing proclamation on 18th March, 2016. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 18th March, 2016, issued proclamation against the applicant and accused no.3.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant made the following submissions:

(i) The complaint has been filed on incorrect facts such as showing the applicant as the CFO. The applicant is not connected with accused no.1 company in any manner. He is neither the signatory, nor CFO or director of the respondent no.1 company.

(ii) The trial Court has mechanically issued process against the applicant. The process was issued on the basis of the statement of the company's authorized representative who has personally not witnessed a single fact and is unable to par