M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.

1. The petitioners in the instant original Petition are accused for the alleged offence under section 120(b), 403, 405, 420, 464, 468, 471 and 499 of India Penal Code, in the Calendar Case No. 16 of 2012, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Salem. The original petition is filed to quash the aforesaid proceedings as well as to quash summoning dated 18.06.2012 issued in the aforesaid proceedings.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are in the board of Religare Finvest Limited, a company which is a non banking financial institution engaged in the business of granting loans and their institution is regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. Further, one such business transaction had taken place with the respondent herein who is the complainant in the aforesaid C.C. No. 16 of 2012 and who is also the proprietor of one Alfa Rubber Industries, having office in Salem. Further, the respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,64,000/- as loan from the company on 30.07.2008. The loan is to be repayable on 36 equated monthly installments of a sum of Rs. 13,528/-. The further case of the petitioners is that at the time of providing loan assistance, cheque leaves were obtained as security along with loan agreement, promissory note and other documents from the respondent herein. The installments payable was commenced from 25.08.2008 and as per the schedule the same has to be completed on 25.07.2011. Since the borrower became a defaulter, the company was constrained to fill-up a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,88,948/- and presented the said cheque. As the respondent became a defaulter, the company issued a letter dated 07.09.2011 by closing the loan account.

3. By leveling these allegations and also other allegation that the cheque issued by the respondents herein got dishonoured, the same culminated into the initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the respondent herein filed the impugned complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C, 1973for the offences aforesaid. It is the further case of the petitioners that by perusing the impugned complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, on 18.06.2012 issued the impugned summoning order to the petitioners to appear before him. Since the summoning order issued by the concerned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and the cognizance was taken without the application of judicial mind, the petitioners are constrained to file the instant original petition.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners that no vicarious liability can be fastened upon the petitioners as the complaint does not contain any allegation to attract the offences as alleged. He adds further that the 1st petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of another company and he resigned from the board of the company as early as on 14.11.2011. At the same time, the learned Magistrate has failed to note that the 2nd petitioner was appointed as a Director of the company on 14.11.2011 only, but the alleged offence said to have taken place in September, 2009. Moreover, the learned counsel has also pointed out that though the 4th petitioner is nothing to do with the company, he also been arrayed as one of the accused, which would show that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without adverted into the facts of the case.

5. In addition to that it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is also unsustainable for the reason that it is passed in cryptic manner absolutely without adduced any reason. He has brought to the notice of this Court that to make out an offence under section 403 of Indian Penal code, the element of dishonesty and misappropriation are very much essential, but in the instant case, though it is admitted by the respondent herein that he has received financial assistance from the company, then no offence under section could be made out, but unfortun