K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The common question that arises for decision in these cases is whether this Court can quash a complaint filed under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - I, Coimbatore and issue a writ of prohibition against the said court from proceeding with the case, in so far as the same concerns the writ petitioner. Since the facts and the questions of law involved are the- same, these cases are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

W.P.(C)No.21289/2005:

2. This Writ Petition is treated as the main case. The petitioner was a partner of the 2nd respondent firm, which is an unregistered partnership firm. The 1st respondent is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, engaged in the manufacture of Fertilizers and Agro-chemicals. The 2nd respondent was marketing the goods manufactured by the 1st respondent. The petitioner retired from the partnership with effect from 1.4.2001. For the amounts due from the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent had issued certain cheques. Three of those cheques drawn on various dates in December, 2003, when presented by the 1st respondent through its Bank at Coimbatore, were dishonoured. So, after completing the usual formalities under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P1 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - I, Coimbatore, alleging the offence punishable under S.138 read with S.141 of the said Act. The Magistrate after taking cognizance, issued summons to the accused, who are respondents 2 to 4 and the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the said court and was enlarged on bail.

3. The petitioner submits, the complaint against her is not maintainable. The cheques were issued in December, 2003. She retired from the 2nd respondent firm with effect from 1.4.2001. In support of that submission, the petitioner relies on Ext.P2 deed of partnership, reconstituting the partnership on 1.4.2001. The said reconstitution in the partnership was intimated to the sales tax authorities at Tripunithura, as per Ext.P3 letter. Exts.P4 and P5 income tax returns filed by the 2nd respondent would show that the petitioner was a partner up to 31.3.2001 and was not a partner with effect from 1.4.2001. Exts.P6 and P7, which relate to income tax returns for the subsequent years, would show that the petitioner was not a partner of the firm for the subsequent years also. In view of the above position, the petitioner has been made an accused in the case unnecessarily. She cannot be said to be a person in charge and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the firm, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. ((2002) 7 SCC 655) and also the decision of the Madras High Court in Ashok Muthanna & Ors. v. Wipe Finance Ltd., rep by its Area Manager, Chennai (2001 (2) Crimes 307). On the basis of the above facts and grounds, the petitioner prays to quash Ext.P1 to the extent she is arrayed as an accused in it and also seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the Coimbatore court from proceeding against her.

4. The Writ Petition was admitted and stay was granted. The 1st respondent appeared and raised an objection that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The learned single Judge, who heard the matter, referred the case to be heard by a Larger Bench, along with two other connected cases, by order dated 16.8.2005. The case has been referred for the apparent conflict between the Division Bench decision of this Court in Krishnakumar Menon v. Neoteric Informatique (P) Ltd. (2001 (3) KLT 689) and another Division Bench decision in U.B.C. v. Govarthanam (2005 (2) KLT 461). In the first decision, it was held that the power under S.482 of the Cr.P.0 or under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to quash a complaint pending before a court outside Kerala. But,