Criminal liability for cheque dishonour requires specific pleadings establishing in-charge responsibilities during the offence.

O R D E R

The petitioner faces criminal prosecution for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, in S.T.No.231/2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. In the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, he seeks to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid case.

2. The second respondent herein had instituted Annexure-I complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, arraigning the following persons as accused.

“1. M/s. Kuttiyanickal Rubbers Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatories, Mr. Kuruvila K Thomas, aged 64 years, S/o. Thomas Kuruvila, Kuttiyanickal H, Near YWCA, 31st Mile, Mundakayam, Near Post Office, Kottayam, Kerala-686513. (Mundakayam, Kottayam Police Station Limit)

2. Mr. Kuruvila K Thomas, Rep by its Authorised Signatories, M/s Kuttiyanickal Rubbers Pvt. Ltd., aged 64 years, S/o. Thomas Kuruvila, Kuttiyanickal H, Near YWCA, 31st Mile, Mundakayam, Near Post Office, Kottyam, Kerala-686513.”

Later on, the learned counsel for the second accused filed a Memo before the learned Magistrate, stating that the second accused was no more the Director of the aforesaid company from 01.09.2007 onwards, and hence he has to be exonerated from the criminal prosecution. In the same Memo, the second accused mentioned the name and address of the petitioner herein, as the Managing Director-in-charge of the company mentioned as the accused in the aforesaid complaint. Though the petitioner opposed the application for his impleadment in the aforesaid case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that he is liable to be impleaded as the person representing the accused company, since the information which could be gathered from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs showed that the petitioner herein and another person by name ‘Annakutty Kuruvila’ are the Directors of that company. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate ordered to substitute the petitioner as the person representing the first accused company, and also to correct the cause title of the complaint accordingly. It is thus that the petitioner herein happened to be the accused in the aforesaid case. In the meanwhile, the original second accused had filed Crl.M.C.No.6263/2019 before this Court stating that the proceedings against him are to be quashed, since he is not responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the aforesaid company. This Court, as per the order dated 23.09.2019, allowed the above Crl.M.C. and quashed all the proceedings against the original second accused in S.T.No.231/2017 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam.

3. Now, in the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is not liable to be prosecuted for the alleged dishonour of the cheque issued by the original second accused in favour of the complainant/second respondent.

4. Though the case has been posted for hearing on several occasions, the learned counsel representing the second respondent/

complainant did not choose to appear or advance any arguments.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent.

6. As already stated above, Annexure-I is the copy of the complaint on the basis of which criminal prosecution has been launched before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, in connection with the dishonour of a cheque dated 04.05.2017 said to have been issued by the accused therein. It has to be stated at the outset that the names and details of the accused are mentioned in the aforesaid complaint in an erroneous manner. The first accused is shown as M/s Kuttiyanickal Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. represented by its authorised signatory,