K. Ramakrishnan, J.

Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, who are the Managing Director and Director of the company facing liquidation have challenged the proceedings by filing these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. In Crl. MC No. 4044/2014 petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in ST No. 162/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Koyilandy. That case was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein against the company by name Pen Properties and Builders Private Limited, Aluva, who is arrayed as second respondent herein with the petitioners as Managing Director and Director of the company, alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Earlier the case was taken on file as CC No. 583/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy. Since the present petitioners did not appear, the case against them was split up and refilled as CC 863/2013 as against the first petitioner, which is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Koyilandy, and as ST 162/2013 as against the 2nd petitioner and now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Koyilandy.

2. Crl. MC No. 2873/2014 was filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in ST No. 1405/2009, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perambra-II, which was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the 3rd respondent company and the present petitioners as accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Crl. MC No. 2874/2014 was filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in ST No. 276/2009 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perambra-I, which was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the 3rd respondent company and the petitioners as accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. In all these cases, the case of the complainant was that, the first accused company represented by accused Nos. 2 and 3 owed certain amounts and in discharge of that liability accused Nos. 2 and 3 had issued the disputed cheques on behalf of the company from the account maintained by the first accused company in their banks at Aluva.

5. According to the petitioners, by virtue of Section 446 of Companies Act, 1956 and present Section 279 and 280 of the Companies Act, 2013, no proceedings can be initiated against the company or proceeded against the company without the leave of the company Court and the magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, as the allegation is that, the company has committed the offence and they are only acting as representatives of the company and they want to quash the proceedings on that ground by filing the above respective petitions.

6. Heard the counsel for the petitioners in these cases, Advocate Sri. K.V. Sohan and the counsel appearing for the respondents representing the liquidator Sri. K. Moni, A. Renjith Narayanan and learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The counsel for the petitioners in all these cases submitted that, by virtue of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, which is now replaced by Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, no proceedings shall be allowed to continue in respect of winding up company without the leave of the company Courts. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Narayanankutty v. Official Liquidator 1998 KHC 99 : 1998 (1) KLT 525 : 1998 (1) KLJ 656 : ILR 1998 (2) Ker. 441 : AIR 1998 Ker 278 in support of his case.

8. The counsel for the respondents submitted that, suit or other proceedings mentioned in Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, or present Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, will not take in criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Counsel for