J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Since a common question of law has been raised in both the captioned applications and the parties are also the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. By these two applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings to the two criminal cases being the Criminal Case No. 7674 of 2015 and Criminal Case No. 7675 of 2015 respectively pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad arising from the complaints filed under section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. The applicant herein has been arraigned as an accused in her capacity as the authorized and responsible officer of a company by name B.M. Infrastructure Industries Pvt. Ltd. The cheques in question were drawn by the husband of the applicant herein namely Mukeshbhai, original accused No. 1 in the complaint. The applicant herein is sought to be fastened with the vicarious liability under section 141 of the N.I. Act. I am afraid both the complaints should fail in the absence of the company not being arraigned as an accused in the complaint. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC 661.

4. At this stage, Mr. Hardik Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that it was just a typographical error on the part of the complainant in not arraigning the company as an accused. Mr. Shah submits that, his client has moved an application before the court concerned under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to implead the company as an accused in the complaint. I am afraid the application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to implead the company as an accused at this stage is not maintainable in law. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Oanali Ismailji Sadikot v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2016 (3) GLR 1991, wherein this Court held as under;

"37. Before I proceed to answer the third question, I deem fit to quote Sections 138 and 142 of the Act:

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, b [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

142. Cognizance of offences

Notwithstanding anything containe