JUDGMENT :

1. Since the issue involved in both these matters is same, both these matters are taken up together. Learned advocates for the respective parties state that except the details in respect of cheques, rest of the facts are almost identical and, therefore, by consent of learned advocates both these matters are taken up together for final hearing.

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta for Respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for Respondent No.2 – original complainant.

3. Considering the fact that barring the cheque details i.e. date and amount, rest of the facts of both the petitions are similar and, therefore, facts of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3853 of 2020 are taken for consideration, which are in brief stated as under:

3.1 That the present petitioner is the Director of Partnership Firm viz. Nico Tiles. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner and director of Respondent No.2 company i.e. Cetras Speciality Pvt. Ltd. viz. Sunny Josheph Chathanattu were working together earlier and they had candid relationships. Thereafter in the year 2014, the petitioner commenced his partnership business of selling tiles, sanitary wares etc. with one Mr. Muhammed Jaseer in the name and style of ‘FAP International’.

3.2 Thereafter on 12.04.2015, the petitioner and his partner Mr. Muhammed Jaseer executed an amendment to the partnership deed and name of partnership firm ‘FAP International’ was changed to ‘Nico Tiles’. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the usual practice of business, Respondent No.2 company demanded blank cheque from the account of the petitioner firm and, therefore, petitioner issued blank cheque being No.000100 from the account of ‘Nico Tiles’ drawn on the Bank of India, Malappuram Branch with the request to the Respondent No.2 not to use the aforesaid cheque as the cheque was incomplete since the second partner of firm Mr. Muhammed Jaseer did not sign the cheque.

3.3 Despite the petitioner’s specific oral instruction to Respondent No.2 not to deposit cheque without any intimation to the petitioner, it is alleged by the petitioner that Respondent No.2 deposited the said cheque with its bank and ultimately cheque was dishonored with an endorsement of ‘funds insufficient’. Since the cheque was dishonored, Respondent No.2 issued a demand notice dtd.25.07.2018 under Section 138 of the NI Act demanding an amount of Rs.56,59,278/- (Fifty Six Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand and Two Hundred Seventy Eight Rupees Only). However, the notice issued by the Respondent No.2 was only to the partners of the company viz. present petitioner and Muhammed Jaseer and notice was not issued to ‘Nico Tiles’ which is partnership firm wherein the present petitioner is one of the partners.

3.4 Thereafter, the record indicates that petitioner did not reply to the notice. However, Respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act against the present petitioner and his partners Mr. Muhammed Jaseer. The complaint preferred by the Respondent No.2 is registered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 142 of the the Act was registered as Criminal Case No.9414 of 2018. The said complaint also was not registered against Firm wherein petitioner is owner i.e. ‘Nico Tiles’.

3.5 In respect of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3877 of 2020, criminal case was registered as Criminal Case No.9415 of 2018 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural).

3.6 After the aforesaid two complaints were registered and summons were issued to the present applicant, the applicant preferred present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) for quashing and setting aside both the complaints on the ground that since the petitioner is the partnership firm and at the time of giving