1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was filed by the accused in S.T.No.1141/2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent herein is the complainant. He filed Annexure -V complaint against the petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NIAct) with a plea that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of a cinema theatre by name Prathibha theatre at Mavelikkara. One Bose Varghese, Proprietor of Chemapakasseri Films had liabilities with the first respondent. The petitioner issued two cheques both dated 17.2.2005 for Rs. 1,00,000/- each drawn on Federal Bank Ltd., Mavelikkara branch in discharge of a part of the liability owed by Bose Varghese. The liability is in relation to a feature film titled 'Hrudayathil Sookshikkan'. When the first respondent sent the cheques for collection through Indian Bank, Thiruvananthapuam branch, the cheques were returned dishonoured with endorsement 'account closed'. Thereupon the first respondent caused notice intimating dishonour of the cheques and demanding discharge of the liability. Though the petitioner accepted the same on 19.5.2005, the liability was not discharged.

2. On getting the process, the petitioner moved this petition with a plea that there was no transaction between the petitioner and the first respondent and that the petitioner did not owe any liability to the fist respondent and that the petitioner entered into an agreement with Sree Mookambika Films, Ernakulam for screening their film 'Hrudayathil Sookshikkan'. Annexure-I is the copy of the agreement. As per Annexure-I, Sree Mookambika Films who are producer and distributor of the above movie, agreed to release the film on 17.2.2005 as a Muharam release. There was a practice in the film industry that the distributor would collect advance from the theatres and adjusting it against movie collections. Petitioner also agreed to pay an advance of Rs.2,00,000/-and towards the same, two cheques for Rs. 1,00,000/-each were issued in favour of Sree Mookambika Films. Chempakassery productions owned by Bose Varghese issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- as security to prevent abuse of the cheques issued by the petitioner. Despite Annexure-I agreement, the film could not be released by 17.2.2005. It is further stated that the distributor had availed a loan from the first respondent and without informing the petitioner, the cheques issued by the petitioner were handed over to the fist respondent, which in turn presented the same for collection and dishonoured. More amounts were due from the distributor to the first respondent. The first respondent had initiated prosecution basing upon a cheque issued by the distributor and had also initiated revenue recovery proceedings. Since there was no transaction between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and there is no enforceable debt or other liability as against the petitioner no offence u/s 138 of NIAct is made out to sustain prosecution. With this plea, the petitioner sought for quashing Annexure-V complaint.

3. I have heard either side and perused the documents.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions in the petition would argue that since the cheques were drawn without consideration, in view of Section 43 of the N.I. Act, the prosecution is not sustainable. The learned counsel had also canvassed my attention to Annexure-III, copy of the notice issued by the first respondent to the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the cheques were issued in discharge of the liability owed by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. In Annexure-V complaint, the 1st respondent had a different case that the cheques were issued to discharge a part of the liability owed by Bose Varghese. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the prosecution is not sustainable. On the other hand, the 1st respondent would argue that to make ou