PADMINI JESUDURAI J.

The accused in C.C. No. 46 of 1990, pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by the Act 66 of 1988, on a complaint given by the respondent herein, invokes the inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the above proceedings. The allegation in the complaint is that, for liabilities arising out of supply of pictorial calendars by the respondent to Surya Advertising P. Ltd., whose sister concern is Mudra Graphic P. Ltd., the petitioner being the managing director of both the concerns, representing that funds in Surya Advertising P. Ltd. were not sufficient and that there was sufficient funds in Mudra Graphics P. Ltd., issued a cheque for Rs. 20, 000 in Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. account.

The cheque when presented by the respondent through the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Sivakasi, was returned unpaid for want of funds with an endorsement by the bank "refer to drawer". The statutory notice of demand was given to the petitioner requiring him to pay the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice and the petitioner not having paid the amount, the complaint was filed. On receipt of the summons from the trial court, the petitioner has filed the present application to quash the above complaint.

Thiru V. Sairam, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged two contentions in support of his prayer :

(i) According to the complaint, the cheque was issued by Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. which owed no debt or was under no liability to the respondent, whereas the liability for calendars supplied was that of Surya Advertising P. Ltd. and as such, the petitioner who is shown as the managing director of Surya Advertising P. Ltd., cannot be prosecuted.(ii) The cheque had been issued by Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. and when the cheque is dishonoured for want of funds, the offence, if any, is committed only by Mudra Graphics P. Ltd., which is not the accused in the case and hence the present petitioner cannot be prosecuted even though he had signed the cheque as managing director of Mudra Graphics P. Ltd.

Meeting the above contentions, Thiru K. S. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that at this stage, this court has merely to accept the complaint as it is and find out whether an offence has been committed and in the present case, there is a specific averment in the complaint that Surya Advertising P. Ltd. and Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. are sister concerns and the petitioner is the managing director of both the concerns and the cheque has been issued by the petitioner from out of the account of Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. on the specific representation that funds in Surya Advertising P. Ltd. were not sufficient and that there were sufficient funds in Mudra Graphics P. Ltd. According to learned counsel, either way, the petitioner would be liable, particularly when to the notice of demand sent after the dishonour of the cheque, the petitioner had not chosen to send even a reply or to pay the amount and, as such, the complaint has to be sustained.

The question that arises for consideration is whether any one of the contentions put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted.

It is settled law that, at this stage, this court while acting under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has to accept the averments in the complaint as they are, without adding anything thereto or subtracting anything therefrom and find out if the offence is made out against the accused. If the complaint discloses the offence against the accused and there is no legal impediment to the continuance of the proceedings, this court cannot stifle the prosecution by quashing it at its very threshold. Every opportunity must be given to a complainant to prove his case during trial. It is in this background that the legal contentions have to be analysed.For considering the first conten