ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2715/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri. N.K.Dilip, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Lakshmi Menon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

One Sivan and Company, a sole proprietorship of one Sri.

V.G.Siddartha, was engaged in the business of trading of shares. It transpires that the respondent / complainant and the sole proprietor had transactions amongst themselves and the transactions leads to issuance of certain cheques by the said sole proprietor in favour of the respondent. Two of such cheques were honoured, and the other three of the cheques were kept to be presented. In the interregnum, the sole proprietor dies. On the death of the sole proprietor, the cheques that were presented and dishonoured were sought to be proceeded against by registering a crime against the petitioners. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and issues summons to the petitioners, it is then the petitioners knock at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the signatory to the cheque was a sole proprietor of the aforesaid firm, and on his death, the liability would not move upon the legal heirs of such sole proprietor. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court to contend that the proceedings should not be permitted to continue.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent /

complainant, though admitting the position in law, would however contend that they be reserved with a right to initiate proceedings in accordance with law seeking recovery of the amount. The proceedings under the negotiable instruments acts may have to be closed, but other avenues should not be closed by this order. He would further contend that the chartered accountant certificate that the petitioners seek to place reliance upon is issued by the Corporation Bank, and therefore, much credence should not be laid on that.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, and the issue lies in a narrow compass. It is admitted that Sivan and Company was a proprietorship concern and cheques had been issued by the late V.G.Siddartha. The two cheques were presented during his life time which were honoured, three of the cheques which were presented after his death were dishonoured, and that leads to the registration of the crime against the petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of Raghu Lakshminarayan V/s. Fine Tubes reported in (2007)5 SCC 103, considering an identical issues, holds as follows:

6. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons on the other accused persons relying on the basis of the averments made in the said complaint petition fled by the respondent herein. An application filed by the appellant herein for quashing the summons issued to him in an application filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed stating:

"… After the pre-summoning evidence was recorded the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that prima facie case was made out against all the accused persons and, therefore, summoned these accused. Challenging these summoning orders Accused 3 has filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC. It is inter alia, contended that he was never the Director of the said Accused 1; cheque in question was not signed by him and that he was not responsible for the conduct of business of Accused 1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was an employee of Accused 1. In support, appointment letter dated 15-7-2000 is enclosed as per which petitioner was appointed as "Director-Producti