ORDER :

This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings arising out of complaint filed by the respondent herein being Complaint Case No.2455 of 2015 (Jai Prakash vs. Smt. Shobha Tripathi and another) pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent/complainant has filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) against the petitioners herein before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg alleging that Cheques bearing Nos. 771819 of Rs.4,50,000/-, 771820 of Rs.11,65,370/- and 771821 of Rs.11,00,000/-, issued by the petitioners herein in favour of M/s. Jyoti Enterprises of which respondent/complainant is proprietor, were dishonored when presented before the bank and same were returned unpaid due to stoppage of payment at drawer’s end. The petitioner No.01 i.e. Smt. Shobha Tripathi is sole proprietor of M/s. Arnav Industries and the petitioner No.02 i.e. Dev Prakash Tripathi is husband and also power of attorney holder of petitioner No.01. The petitioner No.02 is also in-charge and responsible for day to day business of the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries. Petitioners’ firm- M/s. Arnav Industries has also issued an authority letter (Annexure-A/5) in favour of the bank authorizing the petitioner No.02 to operate the bank accounts and lockers of the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries. Hence, implicating the present petitioners as accused, the complaint (Annexure-A/1) has been filed by the respondent.

3. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the aforesaid cheques were issued on behalf of the firm, namely, M/s. Arnav Industries and same were signed by the power of attorney holder i.e. petitioner No.02, therefore, without impleading the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries as party, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is not maintainable in view of Section 141 of the NI Act. By placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 he submits that though in the present case the firm- M/s. Arnav Industries is a sole proprietorship firm, but ratio of Aneeta Hada (supra) is squarely applied in the present case. He further submits that as the cheques in question were not in any manner signed by Smt. Shobha Tripathi (petitioner No.01), who is proprietor of the firm, therefore, she is not legally liable for dishonor of the said cheques. By placing reliance in the matter of P.J. Agro Tech Limited and others vs. Water Base Limited, (2010) 12 SCC 146 leaned counsel submits that Smt. Shobha Tripathi (petitioner No.01) is not the drawer of the said cheques, as such, she cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that vide letter dated 04th June, 2014 (Annexure-A/6) the petitioner No.02, on behalf of M/s. Arnav Industries, has informed the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, SME Branch, Bhilai to stop payment of the aforesaid cheques and has also informed the bank that said cheques were issued as a security, but due to some difficulty in negotiation the holder of the cheques is not entitled to collect the payment and, to the same effect, vide letter dated 10th June, 2014 (Annexure-A/7) the petitioner No.02 has duly intimated to the respondent-complainant’s firm and requested to return the said cheques and to take back the goods supplied by him as the goods which were supplied are of inferior quality. The said registered letter (Annexure-A/7) was duly received by the complainant’s firm on 11th June, 2014 and copy of acknowledgment alongwith postal receipt have been filed alongwith this petition in support of this contention. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners