p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 4854 of 2023 Hemanta Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate -versus- Dhirendranath Pati …. Opp. Party(s) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 07.07.2026 04. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has been arraign as an accused in a complaint case being 1CC Case No. 2965 of 2015 initiated by the opposite party/complainant under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the allegation of dishonored of cheque amounting to Rs.22,600/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the entire complaint case on the ground that the subject cheque was not issued by him in his capacity. 3. In the complaint, the opposite party/complainant has averred that the petitioner is a Director and authorized signatory on behalf of M/s Jay Santoshi Maa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It is also seen from the record that M/s Jay Santoshi Maa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd had p. 2 issued a cheque amounting to Rs.22,600/- on 16.10.2015 in favour of the opposite party/complainant. It is borne on record that the opposite party/complainant has not issued any statutory notice under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act to M/s Jay Santoshi Maa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and in the complaint also M/s Jay Santoshi Maa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd has not been arrayed as an accused. 4. Mr. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the absence of the company being arrayed as an accused, the petitioner cannot be simpliciter prosecuted for offence under Sections 138/142 of N.I. Act. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Aneeta Hada vrs. God Father Travels and Tours (P) Ltd., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661. 5. The petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada (supra). Without proceeding against the company, a Director alone cannot be prosecuted under Section 138/142 of N.I. Act, if the subject cheque was issued by the company. Further, between the same parties, another Crl. Misc. Case being CRLMC No. 4974 of 2023 was also allowed by this Court, inter alia, observing as under:- p. 3 “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada vrs. God Father Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 has submitted that law in this regard is no more res-Integra. It is settled that without arraying the company as a party to the proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the Director alone cannot be prosecuted. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party concedes the position of law and fairly submits that the complaint would fail as the Company has not been made an accused for which the cheque was issued by the petitioner.” 6. In view of the aforementioned, the CRLMC is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner stands quashed. Ashok ( S.S. Mishra) Judge MOHAPATRA