Judgment : A. RAMAMURTHI, J. ( 1 ) Petitions filed by the petitioner/first accused in C. C. Nos. 574 575 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate VI, Madurai and to quash the proceedings. ( 2 ) THE brief facts for disposal of both cases are as follows :-The petitioner was working as a Special Officer in Kattur Agro Engineering and service Co-Operative Centre Limited at Minjur. He placed orders for supply of endosulphan on 3. 1. 1996. The material was also supplied to the Co-operative Centre. A sum of Rs. 5,27,760/-is due from the Government Agency. Anticipating collection of the dues, he gave two cheques to the complainant on behalf of the Co-operative centre which is a quasi Government Agency. The cheques were returned for the reason of insufficient funds. The respondent filed a compliant against the petitioner without adding the Kattur Agro Engineering and Service Co-operative Centre as an accused in the private complaint. The complaint impleading the signatory of the cheque without impleading the company or firm is against law. The complaint without adding the co-operative centre is not sustainable in law and it is liable to be quashed. The complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is clear abuse of process of law and if the same is allowed to continue, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was working as a special Officer in Kattur Agro Engineering and Service Co-operative Centre Limited at Minijur and placed orders for supply of Endosulphan pesticide on 3. 1. 1996. It is further urged that a sum of Rs. 5,27,760/-was due from the Government agencies to the Kattru Agro Engineering and Service Centre. Anticipating collection of the dues, the petitioner gave two cheques to the complainant on behalf of the Co-operative Centre and ultimately, it was returned as insufficient funds. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that the complaint filed by the respondent or the firm is against law and, therefore, both the complaints and the charge sheets are liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also relied on Krishnamoorthy, etc. v. B. S. Kesawm etc. , 1994 (1) L. W. (Crl) 135 : [vol. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also relied on Krishnamoorthy, etc. v. B. S. Kesawm etc. , 1994 (1) L. W. (Crl) 135 : [vol. 1 DCTC 732], wherein it is observed as follows : "on a plain reading of Sec. 141 (1) of the N. I. Act, it would be clear that when an offence is committed by a company, the person responsible alone cannot be prosecuted, leaving the company, when the offence committed by a firm, the partner of the firm cannot be prosecuted, leaving out the firm. In view of non-compliance of Sec. 141 of the Act, the complaints are liable to be quashed. " ( 5 ) THE same view is expressed by a decision of this Court in Suryanarayanan v. M/s. Anchor Marine Service etc. , 1995 (1) L. W. (Crl.) 132: [vol. 2 DCTC 159]. This Court in K. Krishna Bai v. Arti Press, 1991 L. W. (Crl) 513 : [vol. 1 DCTC 174] has observed as follows : "unless the company is made an accused, the person who is in- charge of and who is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company cannot be made an accused. There can be no prosecution of the Managing Director, when the company is not prosecuted. " the aforesaid decisions are applicable to the facts on hand. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid discussion that the petitioner had issued the cheques to the complainant on behalf of the said Co-operative Centre Limited which is a Quasi government Agency. The rulings cited supra, clearly disclose that the filing of the complaint impleading the signatory alone without impleading the company or firm is against law and, as such, they are liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN fact, the respondent was also served by registered post, has neither appeared in person nor engaged any counsel. Records available in both the cases indicated that the cheque was issued by the petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director-cum-Special Officer. In the circumstances, the respondent ought to have impleaded the company for and on behalf of which only, the petitioner has issued the cheques. Records available in both the cases indicated that the cheque was issued by the petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director-cum-Special Officer. In the circumstances, the respondent ought to have impleaded the company for and on behalf of which only, the petitioner has issued the cheques. Since the company has not been impleaded as one of the accused, it goes to the root of the matter and further continuance of the case would be an abuse of process and, as such, necessarily the proceedings against the petitioner in C. C. Nos. 574 and 575 of 1996 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate VI, Madurai, are liable to be quashed. ( 8 ) IN the result, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C. C. Nos. 574 and 575 of 1996 are liable to be quashed and, accordingly, they are quashed. Consequently, crl. M. Ps. 6687, 6688, 6712 and 6713 are dismissed. Petition allowed.