TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioners that there was no proper legal notice mandated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I. Act' for short) and therefore, the entire cognizance is bad in law. Accordingly, he pressed for quashment of the respective complaints. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on dishonour of the cheques alleged to be issued by KAYPEE WIRE PRODUCTS, the 2nd respondent herein/the complainant in all these cases issued notices in a wrong address and as such the notices were returned with the endorsement 'no such addressee'. Therefore, the complaints are liable to be quashed, for want of notice. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed 2 decisions. The first decision cited is one reported in [2012 KHC 4244 : 2012 (12) KLD 16 : 2012 (2) KHC SN 36 : 2012 (4) SCALE 644 : 2012 (2) KLJ 456 : 2012 (2) KLT 736 : 2012 (5) SCC 661 : AIR 2012 SC 2795 : 2012 CriLJ 2525], Aneeta Hada & Ors. V. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. In the said decision, the Apex Court considered maintainability of prosecution under Section 141 of the N.I. Act and held that arraigning a company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leas about the involvement of the accused in the affairs of the company must also be incorporated. xxx xxx xxx. Based on the above decision, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in these matters, the above 5 ingredients were not complied with. According to him, in these cases, the company is not arraigned as the first accused, instead as third accused. This argument appears to be bereft of any merit for the reason that once an accused, who must be in the party array, got arrayed, the status of the accused as first, second or third, etc. has no much significance and the decision reported in Preesa Foods and Spices (India) Private Limited v. State of Kerala & Ors.'s case (supra) has to be read and understood in this way. The learned counsel given much emphasis to demand notices, as I have already pointed out, since the notices issued in these matters returned with the endorsement "no such addressee". 7. Repelling this argument, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that notices were issued in Malayalam language and the address in the notices also were written in Malayalam language. In English language, the name of the Company is "KAYPEE WI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39; or 'house locked' or 'shop closed' or 'addressee not in station', due service has to be presumed." 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in a latest decision reported in [2022 KHC 6464 : 2022 (1) KLD 881 2022 KHC OnLine 6464 : 2022 (6) SCALE 794 : 2022 (3) KLT SN 57 : 2022 (3) KLT OnLine 1037], Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., the Apex Court held that the High Court should be slow to grant relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage when factual controversy is in the realm of possibility, particularly, because of the legal presumption. In paragraphs 16 to 18 of the judgment, the Apex Court embodied the principles as under: "16. The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he like." That apart, in the decisions reported in [1988 (1) SCC 692], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; [1995 (6) SCC 194], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; [1996 (5) SCC 591], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.; [1996 (8) SCC 164], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla; [1999 (3) SCC 259], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi; [2000 (3) SCC 269], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; [2000 (4) SCC 168], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar; [2001 (8) SCC 645], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; [2005 (1) SCC 122], Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, the Apex Court summarised the principles while quashing a complaint. The principles are as under: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detai....