The petitioner has come forward with the instant Criminal Original Petition is to call for records in C.C. No. 287 of 2000, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode, and quash the same.

This Criminal Original Petition has arisen in this way :-

The respondent Y. S. Mathivanan filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that one Jayalakshmi was the President of Sri Amman Trust, that the trust was running educational institutions like schools and colleges, that for the purpose of running the institutions, for and on behalf of Sri Amman Trust, Jayalakshmi borrowed Rs. 30,00,000/- from the respondent, who is a financier on 6-4-2000 and issued two post-dated cheques bearing Nos. 046133 for Rs. 20,00,000/-, 046134 for Rs. 10,00,000/-. The cheques were dated 12-4-2000. The respondent/complainant sent the cheques for collection to the bank on 12-4-2000, but they were returned on the same date with an endorsement "funds insufficient". The respondent/complainant issued statutory notice to the accused demanding payment on 12-4-2000. The second accused Jayalakshmi received the notice on 15-4-2000 and sent a reply. The other accused, namely, the petitioners herein, have not sent any reply at all. Since no amount was forthcoming after expiry of the statutory period, the respondent Y. S. Mathivanan preferred the private complaint, which the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 287 of 2000.

Now, the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings on the following grounds :-

(i) There is no allegation against the petitioners that they were actually participating in the affairs of the society. Petitioners 1 and 2 were studying in Engineering College at Chennai;

(ii) The third petitioner is an aged lady. She is a permanent resident of Karur and she had no active role to play in the affairs of the Society.

(iii) The respondent had want only given wrong address of the petitioners in the notice and the complaint only to avoid service of statutory notice.

(iv) As per the Bye-laws of the society, the borrowing on behalf of the society can be done in the particular manner known under law and the respondent cannot array the petitioners as accused.

Heard both sides. Regarding the first contention of the petitioners, I have gone through the complaint. In State of Bihar v. K. J. D. Singh, 1994 SCC (Cri) 63 : (1993 Cri LJ 3537), the Apex Court has pointed out that the inherent power under Section 482. Cr. P.C. has to be exercised for the ends of justice and should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial. It has been pointed out that the exercise of the powers by the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the prosecution launched against the respondent at the stage when the trial had not even commenced was not proper. Such course should be followed in the cases where further continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

In Anil Hada v. Indian Acrylic Ltd., (2000) 1 Mad LW (Crl) 422 : (2000 Cri LJ 373) a question was posed by the Apex Court; when a Company, which committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, eludes from being prosecuted thereof, can be Directors of that company be prosecuted for that offence ? The Apex Court has pointed out that the offender under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is drawer of the cheque, but by virtue of fiction envisaged in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, three categories of the persons can be discerned within the purview of penal liability. They are (1) The Company which committed the offence; (2) Everyone who was incharge of and responsible for the business of the company; (3) Any other person who is a Director or a Manager or a Secretary or officer of the company, with whose connivance or due to whose neglect the company has committed the offence. Their Lordships of the Apex Court have stated as under in paragraph