Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act primarily rests on the drawer of the cheque, which in this case is the institution, not the individual signatory, thus prosecution against the individual is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The same Petitioner in both the CRLMCs has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The present application has been filed challenging the order of cognizance dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Nayadhikari, Gram Nayalaya, Puri in ICC Case No. 16/2025 and 17/2025, whereby cognizance has been taken for the alleged offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is that he had purchased two parcels of land, owing to a shortage of funds at the relevant time, requested the Complainant to extend a friendly loan of Rs. 20,00.000/- with an assurance to repay the said amount within a period of one month.

(ii) Thereafter, when the Petitioner failed to repay the loan within the stipulated time, he issued a cheque bearing No. 000107 drawn on ICICI Bank, Baramunda Branch, for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The said cheque was issued for encashment from the account maintained in the name of Nigam Engineering of Technology, bearing the seal and signature of the Petitioner in his capacity as the Managing Director and Chairman of the said institution.

(iii) Pursuant to the said request, the Opp. Party presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment by depositing the same in his account in S.B.I., Chandanpur Branch, Puri. However, the cheque was returned unpaid by the band with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. Consequently, the Opp. Party instituted a complaint case in respect of the said dishonour.

(iv) It is further stated that the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the Petitioner in his individual capacity, notwithstanding the fact that the cheque in question was issued by him in his capacity as the Managing Director and Chairman of the Institution.

(v) Thereafter, the Opp. Party filed the present ICC Case on 30.07.2025, subsequent to reciving summons in the complaint case bearing ICC No. 2215 of 2025, which had earlier been instituted on 16.04.2025 before the learned J.M.F.C.-II, Bhubaneswar.

(vi) It is further stated that a complaint case has also been instituted against the Opp. Party has filed under Sections 420, 318, 115(2), 126, 336, 351, 109, 296, 393, 303(3) of the I.P.C. , in which statement of the complainant has been recorded in accordance with the law.

(vii) The impugned complaints, cognizance has been taken in ICC Case No. 16 of 2025 and 17 of 2025 against the present Petitioner. The Petitioner contends that the said proceedings are not maintainable in law, inasmuch as the cheque in question was issued by him in his capacity as the Chairman and Managing Director of the Institution and not in his individual capacity.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present CRLMC Application seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Petitioner submits that the present petition arises out of the allegations levelled against him in connection with the ICC Case No. 16/ 2025 and 17/2025. It is contended that the impugned proc