Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) - Petitioners are A. 2 to A. 5 in C. C. No. 213/92 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Srivilliputtur. They are being prosecuted for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, on a private complaint institued by respondent Arjuna Raja. The sum and substance of the complaint disclosed that petitioner are partners of Maniraj Oil corporation. Theni. For the liability incurred by the said company, a cheque was issued on behalf of Maniraj Oil Corporation by Karunakaran arrayed as A. 1, who is not a petitioner in this original petition. The said post-dated cheque dated 25. 12. 1992 was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds" on 6. 3. 1992. A statutory notice was issued and within the period of limitation impugned prosecution was initiated. ( 2 ) IN this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court, Mr. R. Srirangan, petitioners Counsel, contended that no averment whatever is found either in the complaint or in the sworn statement, much less in the documents accompanying the complaint, to indicate that the petitioners were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of Maniraj Oil Corporation. All that has been stated is that they are also partners of the said concern. The argument was that unless minimum averments are available in the complaint, as contemplated under Section 141 of the Act, continuation of the prosecution in so far as they are concerned, would be an abuse of process of law. ( 3 ) ON this contention, I have heard Mr. J. A. Selvakumar, learned Counsel representing mr. B. S. Gnanadesigna. He contended that the cheque was issued for the liability of the firm, and in the complaint averments have been made that all the partners were bound to pay the proceeds of the cheque and that would be sufficient to allow the prosecution to be proceeded with. ( 4 ) I have carefully considered the rival contentions placed for my scrutiny. ( 4 ) I have carefully considered the rival contentions placed for my scrutiny. When an offence is committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished along with the company. The basic requirement would be that there must be some little material to indicate that the petitioners were incharge and were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Such averments being absent in the complaint, sworn statement and the documents accompanying the complaint, the contention of petitioners counsel will have to be necessarily upheld. A civil liability as partners will not suffice to prosecute them. If at any point of time, evidence is brought on record, which will attract the ingredients of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it will always be open for the trial Magistrate, to exercise his discretion under Section 319, Cr. P. C. At this stage, due to total paucity of allegations, petitioners are bound to succeed. ( 5 ) ALL further proceedings in C. C. No. 213/92 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. III, Srivilliputhur, shall stand quashed in so far as it concerns the petitioners alone. Prosecution shall be proceeded with expeditiously as against A. 1. This petition is allowed. Petition allowed.