Alexander Thomas, J.

1. The prayer in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. is for an order from this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 2831/2015 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court (N.I.Act Cases), Kozhikode, on the ground that the cognizance in this case has been taken by learned Magistrate, without conducting the inquiry as contemplated under Sec. 202 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts in this case may be stated as follows:- The petitioner herein is implicated as accused No.3 in the impugned Anx.A complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint proceeds on the basis that the dishonoured cheque in question for an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs, has been been drawn from the account maintained by the 1st accused company and that the signatory of the said cheque is accused No.2. Further that the 2nd accused and the petitioner (A-3), who are stated to be the directors of the 1st accused company, are actually involved and participating in the day to day affairs of the 1st respondent company, etc. The main allegation raised in the complaint is that by offering the sale of metal scraps, an amount of Rs.35 lakhs was received by the 1st accused company with the knowledge of 2nd and 3rd accused and that the 2nd accused has issued cheque dated 13.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.35 lakhs drawn from the account of the 1st accused company and in favour of the complainant, which when presented had dishonoured on the reason "exceeds arrangement". Thereafter the complainant had sent statutory demand notice by registered post in terms of Sec.138 proviso (b) calling upon the accused to pay the amounts covered by the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the said notice was received by the 1st accused on 7.10.2015 and the notice sent to A-2 and A-3 were returned unserved with the endorsement, "unclaimed". After complying with the statutory formalities, the instant complaint has been filed before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court (N.I. Act Cases), Kozhikode. It is further averred that immediately on filing the complaint, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint without even conducting an inquiry under Sec.202 of the Cr.P.C. and had straightaway issued summons to all the 3 accused in the complaint which was taken on file as C.C.No.2831/2015. It is contended by the petitioner that Anx.A complaint is not maintainable and further that the 2nd accused is not the solitary authorised signatory of the 1st accused company and that as per the instructions of the 1st accused company with their bank, the authorised signatories of the cheque drawn from the account of A-1 company is both A-2 and the petitioner (A-3). Further that if the signature of only one of the authorised signatory is there in the cheque of the company, the same will never be honoured as both signatures are necessary for valid cheque of the company. Thus it is contended that even going by the averments in the complaint, the cheque that was issued from the account of the company was not a valid one, which could not have been honoured in any view of the matter, irrespective as to whether or not sufficient balance was there in the account. Further that even as per the admitted averments in the complaint, the petitioner (A- 3) has not signed the dishonoured cheque. Thus the main contention raised by the petitioner is that the cheque in question is not a valid cheque on which no cognizance could have been taken by the learned Magistrate and further that all the 3 accused are residing beyond the territorial limits of the Magistrate court concerned and that therefore in view of the amendment brought in the provisions of Sec.202 in the Cr.P.C. as inserted by Sec. 19 of the Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, (Central Act, 25 of 2005) with effect from 23.6.2006, it was mandatory on the part of the le