ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.329 of 2021 on the file of the learned Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore, thereby taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “the NI Act”) as against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a third accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the first accused is a partnership firm; the second accused is a manager and the third accused is a partner of the first accused company. The accused persons purchased a land owned by the respondent herein to an extent of 2 acres 49.5 cents comprised in different SF numbers on 06.07.2020, by the registered sale deed vide document No.3170 of 2020. The total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.75,00,000/-. However the sale deed was executed for the guide line value of Rs.8,27,735/- and the second accused assured that he would pay the balance sale consideration. That apart, the respondent herein supplied CCTV camera’s and its connected accessories to the first accused company for the installation purposes for which, the accused persons were in due to the tune of Rs.8,90,109/-. Towards discharge of partial liability, the accused had issued a cheque for the sum of Rs.33,60,000/-. It was presented for collection and the same was returned dishonoured for the reason “funds insufficient”. After causing statutory notice, the respondent initiated proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act and it has been taken cognizence by the trial Court in C.C.No.329 of 2021. To quash the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petition.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A3. Though the cheque was issued in the name of the first accused, the amount was due only from the second accused, who had purchased the property on his personal capacity from the respondent by the sale deed dated 06.07.2020. Even as per the second limb of the complaint, the CCTV cameras purchased by A1 & A2. He also points out that according to the respondent, the sale deed was executed in favour of the second accused for the total sale consideration of Rs.75,00,000/- and it is full and final sale consideration as fixed by the respondent. No prudent person would execute the sale deed without receiving the entire sale consideration. Even assuming that the sale consideration was fixed as Rs.75,00,000/- and the sale deed was registered for the guide line value of Rs.8,27,735/-, the remaining amount is unaccounted money and it would not be a legally enforceable debt. There is no legally enforceable debt and it cannot be clubbed together for issuance of cheque. That apart, though the petitioner was added as third accused, no specific overt act and no specific avernments made were as against the petitioner to attract the offences punishable under Sections 138 & 142 of the NI Act. Nothing was whispered about the involvement of the petitioner in the day to day affairs of the first accused company. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in K.S. Mehta Vs. M/s. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd.  2025 Live Law (SC) 286 and the judgment reported in Siby Thomas Vs. M/s. Somany Ceramics Ltd.  2023 Live Law (SC) 869.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is an active partner of the first accused partnership firm. The cheque was issued by the first accused firm. Though the second accused was only the signatory of the cheque, the petitioner, who is being the third accused, has also actively participated in the day to day affairs of the first accused firm. In fact, CCTV cameras and other accessories were supplied by the respondent in favour of all the accused. The second and third accused assured that they would settle the amount to the tune