Cheque dishonour notice addressed to signatory Managing Director held sufficient; quashing of complaint was unwarranted.

In cheque dishonour proceedings, a statutory notice addressed to the Managing Director in his personal name did not justify quashing the complaint where he had issued and signed the cheques and was proceeded against in that capacity. The omission of the company's name in the notice was not fatal on these facts. The Supreme Court held that interference under inherent jurisdiction was unwarranted and that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint and criminal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint and proceedings under the cheque dishonour provisions on the ground that the statutory notice was addressed to the Managing Director in his personal name and not to the company.

Analysis: The cheques were issued and signed by the Managing Director, and the complaint was initiated against him in that capacity. The notice under the cheque dishonour provision was addressed to the very person who had signed the cheques. On these facts, the absence of the company's name in the notice did not justify quashing the complaint. The High Court's interference under the inherent jurisdiction was therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: The High Court was wrong in quashing the complaint and setting aside the criminal proceedings.

---