JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records culminating in S.T.C. No.1564 of 2017 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.)

1. The present petition has been filed for quashment of STC No.1564/2017 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur in a case relating to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It is the case of the respondent, as could be culled out from the complaint, that the petitioner had approached him through one of his business friends and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- for business purposes on 16.2.16, which the petitioner assured to repay within a month. As the said amount was not repaid, repeated demands made by the respondent resulted in the issuance of two cheques, bearing No.844815 for a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, as authorised signatory of Adhiparasakthi Promoters and Property Developers and another cheque bearing No.002334 for a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., T.Nagar Branch, as authorised signatory of BKR Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. However, on presentation of the cheques at Dena Bank, Thandalam, the respondent’s banker on 10.1.17, the same were returned dishonoured citing the reason "insufficient funds". Due to the dishonour of the cheques, the complaint has been given by the respondent for proceeding against the petitioner u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has been entertained by the court below leading to the registration of the case. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed for quashment.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the cheques were issued on behalf of the two companies by the authorised signatory, however, the complaint is bereft of any particulars as to the role of the petitioner in the two companies. Without establishing the direct control of the petitioner in the two companies and the involvement in the day to-day affairs of the companies, making the petitioner liable personally is wholly unsustainable and in the absence of the companies being made as a party to the complaint, the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained.

4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is settled position of law that cheque issued on behalf of the company, it is to be established that the authorised signatory to the cheque was in control of the day to-day affairs of the said company at the time of issuance of the cheques, as contemplated u/s 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the complaint is devoid of any material on that aspect.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without arraying the companies as party to the complaint, filing the complaint against the petitioner in his individual capacity, more so when the cheques were issued by the authorised signatory of the company, is per se unsustainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:-

i) Aneeta Hada -Vs - Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (5) SCC 661).

ii) Anil Gupta -Vs - Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2014 (1) SCC 373)

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has signed the cheques in the capacity of the authorised signatory of the companies and mere mentioning the status of the petitioner either as Director or Partner would not in any way defeat the purpose of the complaint and the said ground is wholly misconceived.

8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was involved in the day to-day administration of the company and merely because his capacity has not been mentioned in the complaint would not absolve his liabil