Sugeeth v. Ordinary Films & Others (Crl.M.C Nos. 4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 4543 of 2015 ------------------------** **ST 348/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, NORTH PARAVUR** **....** **PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:** **-----------------------** **SUGEETH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SURAJ BABU,GURUSMRITHI, PULLARKATTU HOUSE, PERUVARAM WEST, N. PARAVUR-683 513.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED N0 1 & 2:** **-----------------------------------------** ## **1. BINU MAMPILLY,** - **S/O.PAULOSE MAMPILLY, MAMPILLY HOUSE, NEAR K.B.M.COLLEGE JUNCTION, N. PARAVUR.** ## **2. ORDINARY FILMS,** **REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.SATHEESH BABU, BUILDING NO.295, THAMARASSERY ROAD,IQBAL LANE, CHERANELLOOR P.O.** **3. MR.SATHEESH BABU,** **S/O.KUMARAN,THAIVAPPIL HOUSE, S.N.NAGAR,KIZHAKKEPRAM, N. PARAVOOR-673 513.** **4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.PRASUN S.** **SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN** **R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-02-2017, ALONG WITH CRL.MC. 2354/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **Crl.MC.No. 4543 of 2015 ------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 11/4/2012 ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF RECONSTITUTION DEED DATED 6.6.2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE -----------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 --------------------------------Dated this the 21st day of February, 2017. ## O R D E R The petitioner in all these 4 cases is one of the accused in the impugned complaint in these 4 cases instituted for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, on the basis of separate complaints preferred by the respective complainants and those complaints are pending before the respective courts. The petitioner is accused No.3 in S.T.No.348/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.4543/2015. He is accused No.2 in C.C.No.3338/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.2354/2016. The petitioner is accused No.2 in C.C.No.3336/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.2365/2016. He is accused No.2 in C.C.No.3337/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, which is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.6673/2016. ::2:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 The impugned complaints have been preferred by the respective complainant concerned relating to the alleged dishonour of cheque issued from an account of a partnership firm by name “M/s. Ordinary Films” and it is alleged that the petitioner is also one of the partners of the said firm, which is in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the said partnership firm and that, apart from the partnership firm, who is the principal accused in these cases, the Managing Partner of the said firm as well as the petitioner, as the partner, are also arrayed as accused in these complaints. The sheet anchor of the contentions raised by the petitioner in these cases are that he was not a partner of the said partnership firm at the time of issuance and execution of the cheques in question inasmuch as he had retired from the firm as its partner as early as on 6.6.2013 as evident from Anx.A-2 and that another person was inducted as a partner of the firm consequent to the retirement of the petitioner from the firm, with effect from 6.6.2013. Therefore, it is contended that as the petitioner had retired much prior to the issuance of the cheque in question, he cannot be vicariously held liable for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act, alleged to have been committed by the partnership firm. It is not in dispute that the alleged dishonour of cheques in question have all been issued from the account maintained ::3:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 by the partnership firm, who is accused No.1 in these complaints. Now, it will be pertinent to refer briefly to the facts in each of the 4 individual cases. ## Crl.M.C.No.4543/2015 2. This Crl.M.C has been preferred to quash the impugned Anx.A-1 private criminal complaint preferred by R-1 complainant, which is now pending as S.T.No.348/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur, with respect to the alleged dishonour of cheque No.248260 dated 11.11.2014 said to have been issued by the partnership firm by name and style “M/s. Ordinary Films” (Accused No.1) for an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs drawn on Indian Bank, North Paravur Branch in favour of R-1 complainant. The said cheque on presentation on 11.11.2014 was returned dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Statutory demand notice under Sec.138(b) of the N.I.Act was issued to the partnership firm on 12.12.2014 and to that on the petitioner on 16.12.2014 respectively, no reply was issued, etc. ## Crl.M.C.No.2354/2016 3. This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash the impugned Anx.A-1 private complaint preferred by R-1 complainant, which is presently ::4:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 pending as C.C.No.3338/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, with respect to dishonour of cheque No.079740 dated 2.7.2015 issued by the above said partnership firm for an amount of Rs.6,81,500/- drawn on Indian Bank, North Paravur Branch, in favour of the complainant/R-1 herein. Crl.M.C.No.2365/2016 4. This Crl.M.C has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned Anx.A-1 complaint which is now pending as C.C.No.3336/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, with respect to the dishonour of cheque No.079723 dated 2.7.2015 issued by the above said partnership firm for an amount of Rs.37,90,555/- drawn on Indian Bank, North Paravur Branch, in favour of the complainant/1[st] respondent herein. Crl.M.C.No.6676/2016 5. This Crl.M.C has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned complaint preferred by R-1 complainant, which is presently pending as C.C.No.3337/2015 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (N.I Act Cases), Kochi, with respect to the dishonour of cheque No.079722 dated 18.6.2015 issued by the partnership firm in the name and style “M/s. Ordinary Films” to the 1[st] ::5:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 accused, for an amount of Rs.40,55,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, North Paravur Branch, in favour of R-1 (complainant). 6. In all the above said 4 cases, the principal accused (A-1) is the partnership firm (M/s. Ordinary Films), A-2 is the managing partner (one Sri.Sathish Babu) and the petitioner, who is described as one of the partners of the firm, is arrayed as accused No.3. There are only 3 accused in the complaint referable to in Crl.M.C.No.4543/2015. Apart from the above 3 persons, newly inducted partner has also been arrayed as A-4 in the other 3 cases. 7. Heard Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A-3), Sri.S.Prasun, learned counsel appearing for R-1 in Crl.M.C.No.4543/2015, Sri.T.M.Mathai, learned counsel appearing for R-1 complainant in the other 3 Crl.M.Cs., and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Other respondents though served, have not entered appearance. 8. As indicated above, the prime contention urged by Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (A-3), is that Anx.A-2 is the registered original deed of partnership dated 11.4.2012 and Anx.A-3 is the reconstituted deed dated 6.6.2013, whereby the petitioner had retired from the partnership firm on ::6:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 6.6.2013 and another person (Dr.Avinash V.Unnithan), who is A-4 in the other three complaints referable to Crl.M.C.Nos.2354/2016, 2365/2016 and 6673/2016, was inducted as partner in the place of the petitioner, with effect from 6.6.2013 and that all the cheques in question, which are the subject matter of the complaints, have been issued long after the retirement of the petitioner from the partnership firm on 6.6.2013 and therefore he cannot be said to be in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the partnership firm. On this basis, it is contended that the petitioner, as the former partner, cannot be vicariously made liable for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. 9. Per contra, Sri.S.Prasun and Sri.T.M.Mathai, learned Advocates appearing for the respective complainants in these cases, would urge that Anx.A-3 which is styled as reconstituted deed is not a registered deed and that a mere reading of Anx.A-3 would show that the said deed relates to the partnership firm which was said to have been constituted on 12.7.2012 and further that a mere reading of Anx.A-2 registered partnership deed would also show that the firm in question covered by Anx.A-2 was originally constituted on 11.4.2012. On this basis it is urged by the complainants that the document covered by Anx.A-3, said to be the reconstituted deed, cannot be the one in ::7:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 relation to the partnership registered deed covered by Anx.A-2. Further the learned Advocates appearing for the complainants by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court would urge that ordinarily interference in these matters under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C may not be resorted to, that these are all aspects, which prominently come within the realm of evidence before the trial court and further that if at all any interference is to be considered by this Court by exercising the powers of Sec.482 Cr.P.C, then it can only on the basis of unimpeachable document of sterling quality. That Anx.A-3 which is stated to be a reconstituted deed is a document, which has admittedly been executed by a private person and even going by the averments of the petitioner it is said to have been issued by none other than the principal accused in the complaint and that therefore it is not safe for this Court to place reliance on such a document as Anx.A-3 to come to any conclusion as to whether or not the petitioner had retired as a partner of the firm on 6.6.2013 as shown in Anx.A-3. Per contra, Sri.C.S.Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these cases, would submit that though Anx.A-3 is not registered, necessary changes pursuant to Anx.A-3 has been duly intimated to the Registrar of Firms, who is the statutory functionary as per the provisions of the Indian ::8:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 Partnership Act and that the changes regarding the retirement of the petitioner and the induction of the new partner with effect from 6.6.2013 pursuant to Anx.A-2 has been duly registered by the Registrar of Firms in the statutory register as evident from Anx.A-6 produced in Crl.M.C.Nos.2354/2016, 2365/2016 and 6673/2016. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited this Court’s attention to the said Anx.A-6, which is Form A details given in Rule 5 proforma issued by the Registrar of Firms, maintained under Sec.59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioner would assert that a mere reading of Anx.A-6 (2), (3) and (4) would show that notice of change under Sec.63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, was duly intimated by the Registrar of Firms, who is the statutory authority, on 6.7.2013 [as per Anx.A-6(4)] and that notice of change under Sec.63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, on 27.7.2013 has been duly shown in Anx.A-6(3) statutory register maintained by the Registrar of Firms. Anx.A-6(2) to (4) produced in Crl.M.C.Nos.2354/2016, 2365/2016 and 6673/2016 reads as follows: ::9:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 ## FORM A (See Rule 5) REGISTER OF FIRMS (Maintained under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932) |1.<br>Serial number of firm<br>: 2093/12<br>2.<br>Name of firm<br>: ORDINARY FILMS<br>3.<br>Date of registration<br>: 04/08/2012<br>4.<br>Duration of the firm<br>:|1.<br>Serial number of firm<br>: 2093/12<br>2.<br>Name of firm<br>: ORDINARY FILMS<br>3.<br>Date of registration<br>: 04/08/2012<br>4.<br>Duration of the firm<br>:|1.<br>Serial number of firm<br>: 2093/12<br>2.<br>Name of firm<br>: ORDINARY FILMS<br>3.<br>Date of registration<br>: 04/08/2012<br>4.<br>Duration of the firm<br>:| |---|---|---| |5. Address|Date of change|Remarks| |Bldg. No.295, Ambady House<br>Thamarassery Road, Iqbal Lane<br>Cheranalloor (P.O)<br>Ernakulam<br>Kochi - 682 034|37/1585 E<br>BOSE NAGAR<br>KADAVANTHRA<br>KOCHI<br>KERALA - 682 020<br>w.e.f. 6/6/62013<br>Vide Notice 3/13|| |6.<br>Partners:||| |Name of the Partners|Addresses|Addresses|Date of|Date of|Date of|Remarks| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||||Joining|Ceasing||| |1. SATHEESH BABU.T.K|No.VII/423, Satheesh Nivas<br>Peruvaram West, North Paravu<br>P.O., Ernakulam Pin - 683 513||,<br>r<br>12.07.12|||| |2. P.S.SUGEETH|No.XVIII/72,<br>Gurusamathi<br>Peruvaram West,<br>North Paravur P.O.<br>Ernakulam - 683 513||12.07.12|6/6/13||Vide notice 2/13| |3.Dr.AVINASH<br>.V.<br>UNNITHAN|SURYAMANGALAM<br>NELLICKAL<br>KOIPURAM P.O.,<br>PATHANAMTHITTA<br>PIN - 689 531||6/613|||Vide notice 2/13| |7.<br>Principal place of business and changes therein<br>Particulars regarding the place<br>Date of change<br>Remarks<br>Bldg.No.295, Ambady House<br>Thamarassery Road,<br>Iqbal Lance<br>Cheranalloor P.O.<br>Ernakualm<br>Kochi - 682 034<br>37/1585 E<br>BOSE NAGAR<br>KADAVANTHRA<br>KOCHI<br>KERALA - 682 020<br>w.e.f. 6/6/13<br>Vide Notice 3/13<br>8.<br>Other place of business||||||| |Name of the place||Date of|||Remarks|| |||Opening|Ceasing|||| |NIL||||||| ::10:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 **==> picture [394 x 243] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> Name of firm : ORDINARY FILMS<br>Serial number of the Description of the Date of filing Signature of<br>document document Registrar<br> 1/12 Statement under Section 58(1) 4/8/12 sd/-<br>of the I.P.Act 1932<br>Registrar of Firms<br> 2/13 Notice of change under Section<br>6/7/13 sd/-<br>63(1) of the Indian Partnership<br>Act, 1932 Registrar of Firms<br> 3/13<br>Notice of change under Section 27/7/13 sd/-<br>63(1) of the Indian Partnership<br>Act, 1932 Registrar of Firms<br> xxx xxx xxx<br> Sd/-<br> REGISTRAR OF FIRMS”<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> That the petitioner, P.S.Sugeeth, initially joined as one of the partners on 11.4.2012 and ceased to be a partner of the firm on 6.6.2013 and that one Dr.Avinash V.Unnithan, was inducted as partner of the firm on 6.6.2013, etc. It is contended that Anx.A-6 series documents are issued by the Registrar of Firms from the office of the Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram, on a request made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, thereby furnishing true extract of registered deed of M/s.Ordinary Films dated 4.1.2016. Accordingly, it is contended by the petitioner that details in Anx.A-6 series is on the basis of a statutory register and that therefore it is an unimpeachable material of sterling quality as envisaged in many rulings of the Apex Court. The ::11:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 petitioner would also contend that the complaint in respect of Crl.M.C.No.4543/2015 is that the cheque in question has been issued for disbursing the complainant's salary claims in respect of his services rendered to the partnership firm and further that the complainants in other cases have claimed that they have frequent business with the partnership firm and therefore these complainants cannot plead ignorance regarding the change in the constitution of the partnership firm. In this regard the petitioner would place reliance on para 4 of the Apex Court ruling in Kovai Yarn Traders v. P.Subramaniam & ors. reported in (2009) 16 SCC 322. 10. To controvert the above said contention of the petitioner Sri.S.Prasun and Sri.T.M.Mathai, learned counsel appearing for the respective complainants, would contend that a document as per Anx.A-6 which is said to have been issued under the Right to Information Act, cannot be said to be an authenticated unimpeachable material and moreover it is only a photocopy of it, etc. As suggested by the petitioner's counsel, this Court could direct the Registrar of Firms to swear an affidavit as to the correctness or otherwise of the details shown in Anx.A-6 document and to produce the originals of the relevant records to ascertain as to the authenticity and correctness of ::12:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 the details described in Anx.A-6 series. However, this Court is of the view that it is not proper for this Court in the facts and circumstances of this case to get in to the process of ascertaining the correctness of the factual details by summoning the documents from such statutory authorities. However, it is to be noted in the judgment in Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra & anr. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 1, the Apex Court has held that in cases involving vicarious corporate liability under Sec.141 of the N.I.Act, where the Director has resigned much before the issuance of dishonoured cheque and his resignation was also proved by the Board of Director and the formalities for informing the Registrar of Companies of such resignation have also been fulfilled there permitting the continuance of Sec.138 complaint proceedings against such an accused person would amount to abuse of the process of the court. Therefore if as a matter of fact, the petitioner has actually retired from the partnership firm as early as on 6.6.2013 and the same has been duly intimated with requisite notice to the Registrar of Firms as sought to be made out on the basis of aforementioned Anx.A-6 series of documents, then certainly continuance of the impugned criminal proceedings against him would amount to abuse of the process of the court as held by the Apex Court in ::13:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 the aforementioned judgment. If this is so, then such retirement of the petitioner has occurred long prior to the issuance of the dishonoured cheques in these cases. 11. It is also relevant to note that the provisions contained in Sec.202 of the Cr.P.C dealing with the postponement of issue of process reads as follows: “Sec.202: Postponement of issue of process.-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,- - (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or - (b) where the complaint has not been made by a court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath : Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.” Sec.203 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows: ::14:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 “Sec.203. Dismissal of complaint.- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.” ## Sec.204 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows: “Sec.204. Issues of process:-(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be- - (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or - (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. - (2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub- - section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. - (3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every - summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. (5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 87.” In the instant case it appears that the Magistrate has taken cognizance after the sworn statement of the complainant taken under Sec.200 of the Cr.P.C and straight away issued process and that the detailed enquiry under Sec.202 of the Cr.P.C has not been conducted. This Court in the judgment in Usha Sanghi v. George Jacob reported in 2008 (4) KLT 649 has held that though failure/omission to conduct an ::15:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 enquiry under Sec.202 of the Cr.P.C in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act will not ipso facto vitiate the cognizance taken, it is necessary in a case where accused persons are sought to be saddled with liability under Sec.141 of the N.I.Act to conduct such an enquiry and that in such cases, it is only proper that the Magistrate must necessarily conduct such an enquiry under Sec.202 to ascertain whether materials are there to justify the allegation that the accused persons were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its affairs of the company-corporate entity in question. No doubt, at the stage of Sec.202, the accused has no right to be heard. The powers conferred on the jurisdictional Magistrate in the conduct of Sec.202 enquiry are quite wide and they could conduct proper enquiry and could even secure affidavit evidence or summon necessary documents to satisfy as to whether or not there are adequate materials to come to the prima facie conclusion that the accused persons who are sought to be saddled with vicarious corporate liability under Sec.141 of the N.I.Act, are in fact persons who are Directors or partners of the company/partnership firm as the case may be, who are in charge of and responsible for the affairs of the business of the company/partnership firm/corporate entity as the case may be. Therefore, this Court is of the view that though this Court is empowered to direct the statutory Registrar ::16:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 of Partnership Firms to furnish details before this Court as to the correctness of the matters contained in Anx.A-6 series of claims, it will be only proper that the said effort is made by the jurisdictional court concerned by conducting a proper enquiry at the stage of Sec.202. On this aspect, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the learned Magistrate in not conducting Sec.202 enquiry to the limited extent it involves the petitioner in these cases is not correct and sustainable. None of the other accused have challenged this and therefore, this Court is only concerned with the action of the learned Magistrate in having issued process to the petitioner herein. In this view of the matter, the action of the learned Magistrate in having issued process to the petitioner in the impugned complaints will stands set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court in each of these cases, who will conduct a detailed and appropriate enquiry under Sec.202 of the Cr.P.C. An additional affidavit could be obtained from the complainants or complainants will be at liberty to adduce necessary evidence in that regard. For the effective ::17:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 conduct of Sec.202 enquiry, the learned Magistrate could direct the Registrar of Firms, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram, to submit affidavit evidence in these cases about the correctness of the details shown in the aforementioned Anx.A-6, the date of registration of firm, whether the petitioner has retired from the firm, if so when, date of notice of change under Se.63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act and all the other relevant details shown in Anx.A-6 in regard to the plea of the petitioner that he had retired from the firm, etc. The Registrar of Firms will also state in such affidavit all such details and will also produce an authenticated copy of Form A (Rule 5) Register of Firms details in respect of the firm 'M/s. Ordinary Films'. The Magistrate concerned will thus ascertain as to the original constitution of the partnership firm in question and as to whether the petitioner had retired from the partnership firm on 6.6.2013 and whether statutory notice of such change has been duly intimated to the Registrar of Firms and whether such changes have also been duly included in the statutory register maintained as per the provisions of the Indian ::18:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 Partnership Act. If after enquiry process that is conducted at the stage of Sec.202, the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the petitioner herein had duly retired from the partnership firm much prior to the commission of the offence in these matters, then it is for him to take necessary decision as envisaged in Sec.203 of the Cr.P.C., to the extent the complaint relates to the petitioner herein. If on the other hand after conclusion of such Sec.202 enquiry, the learned Magistrate is convinced that there are adequate materials to proceed against the petitioner also for the vicarious corporate liability as envisaged under Sec.141 of the N.I.Act, then the learned Magistrate will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with Sec.204 of the Cr.P.C. The entire action in this regard should be completed by the learned Magistrate without much delay, at any rate, within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until a decision is taken by the learned Magistrate as directed above, the trial in these cases will stand deferred. It is made clear that the benefit of this order is only in respect of the petitioner herein and not in respect of other accused. ::19:: Crl.M.C.Nos.4543/2015, 2354/2016, 2365/2016 & 6673/2016 Cognizance taken in summoning those accused are not in nay manner interfered as per the direction in this order. The learned Prosecutor will ensure that the Secretary of the Advocate General, Kerala, will forward a certified copy of this order to the Registrar of Firms, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram, for necessary action, as and when the learned Magistrate concerned directs compliance, as mentioned hereinabove. The learned Prosecutor will also render instructions to the Registrar of Firms to facilitate compliance in this matter. With these observations and directions, the Crl.M.Cs stand finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge. bkn/-