The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in C.C.No.57647/2021 registered for the offences

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Heard Sri.T.V.Vijay Raghavan, learned counsel for

petitioner

and

Sri.Prabhakara.K.L.,

learned

counsel

for

respondent No.1.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition

as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

3

The petitioner is an employee of S.V.Enterprises. The

complainant M/s.Phoinex RMC products had certain transaction

with S.V.Enterprises. The contract between the two was for

supply of ready-mix concrete as and when required. Those

transactions between the two had gone on for a long time and

cheques were being issued from time to time. Few of the

cheques issued by S.V.Enterprises were dishonoured when

presented for want of sufficient funds. One such cheque became

a proceeding in PCR No.51866/2020 registered for offences

punishable under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (8Act9 for

short) instituted by the first respondent. Arraigning the

petitioner

to

be

the

representative

of

the

Company

M/s.S.V.Enterprises, challenging initiation of proceedings and

the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the

offence, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

4. The instrument involved in the transaction is signed by

one S.Neelavathi. The petitioner is neither a representative of

the Company nor the signatory to the instrument and therefore,

4

proceedings could not have been instituted against him and

seeks quashment of the entire proceedings.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the 1^st respondent would refute the submissions to contend that

legal notice was issued by the petitioner to M/s.S.V.Enterprises

depicting it to be represented by the petitioner. Reply is given by

the advocate representing M/s.S.V.Enterprises. Nowhere in the

reply it was indicated that the petitioner had no role to play in

the

Company.

It

is

the

petitioner

who

had

always

communicated by way of mails to the complainant and would

submit that it is a matter of trial that the petitioner has to place

such evidence that he is not responsible for the transaction and

seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. The afore-quoted facts are not in dispute. The

transaction between the 1^st respondent and the 2^nd respondent

turns sore as the instrument when presented is dishonoured for

want of sufficient funds. The amount involved in the instrument

5

is Rs.20 lakhs. The instrument is also appended to the petition

which clearly shows the signature of one S.Neelavathi as

Proprietor/Authorised signatory. On return of the cheque for

want of sufficient funds, a legal notice is caused upon the first

respondent depicting S.V.Enterprises to be represented by the

petitioner.

7. A reply is caused by the Company of the petitioner to

the 1^st respondent. Though, nowhere it is indicated that the

petitioner was not responsible for the affairs of the Company

that by itself would not clothe the complainant with the right to

set the criminal law in motion by registering a crime for offences

punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner is

neither the signatory nor the Director nor the Chairman or in

any capacity authorised by the Company.

8. It is not the case of the petitioner also that he is in any

capacity holding a post in the Company. The defence of the

complainant that it is the petitioner who was always

6

corresponding with the complainant and in view of such

correspondence it is deemed that the petitioner is or was always

aware of all the transactions, would not be enough circumstance

to enmesh the petitioner into the web of criminal proceedings,

unless he has any role to play. For the cheque issued by

someone else, and it having been dishonoured, the blame cannot

be laid on the petitioner.

9. There is no document produced by the 1^st respondent

that would even remotely demonstrate role of the