JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed to quash the complaint filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act”) and the criminal prosecution launched thereon against the applicant. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned advocate for the respondent no.1. 3. Concise statement of facts leading to list in this case may be stated as follows:- 3.1 It is the case of the complainant that Nava Education Trust through its Trustee borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 08.03.2012. Thereafter, the authorized signatory of the said Trust by name Shri Shambhubhai Valjibhai Patel, who is the accused in the said complaint, issued a cheque on 30.05.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/- towards repayment of the said loan and towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. The complainant has presented the said cheque in Dena Bank, Himmatnagar to encash the same. But the said cheque was dishonoured and it was returned with endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”. Thereafter, the complainant has issued a legal notice to the accused informing him about the dishonour of cheque and demanding him to pay the cheque amount. The accused has given reply to the said legal notice. 3.2 As the cheque amount was not paid even after issuing legal notice, the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused. 3.3 The applicant, who is the accused in the said complaint, sought quash of the said complainant and the criminal prosecution launched against him on the ground that the averments of the complaint show that the amount was borrowed by the Trust and the cheque was also issued by the authorized signatory of the said Trust and the Trust stands on par with the company and the firm as contemplated under Section 141 of the NI Act and to prosecute the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act that both the Trust and its authorized signatory, who has issued cheque on its behalf, shall be shown as accused and in the absence of the Trust as an accused in the complaint that the said complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, on the aforesaid sole ground, the applicant sought quash of the said complaint. 4. Therefore, on the aforesaid sole ground, the applicant sought quash of the said complaint. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant while reiterating the said stand contends that though the Trust is not specifically shown in Section 141 of the NI Act that as per the settled law that the Trust stands on the same footing on par with the company and the firm as contemplated under Section 141 of the NI Act and in the absence of the Trust as an accused that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable only against its authorized signatory or its Trustee. 5. Per contra, learned advocate for the first respondent-complainant would contend that the Trustee is not specifically shown in or covered by Section 141 of the NI Act and it deals only with company and the firm. Therefore, the Trust cannot be equated with the company and the firm for the purpose of filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. He contends that the said bar engrafted under Section 141 of the NI Act to file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not applicable to the Trust. Therefore, he would pray to dismiss of this application. 6. The legal position whether the Trust is also covered by Section 141 of the NI Act and whether it stands on the same footing on par with the company and the firm for the purpose of Section 141 of the NI Act or not is no more res integra and the same has been well settled. The Madras High Court in the case of Abraham Memorial Educational Trust vs. C. Suresh Babu, 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 2986 had an occasion to deal with the said question whether the Trust also falls within the purview of Section 141 of the NI Act or not. The Madras High Court after the elaborate discussion, ultimately, held that a Trust having more than one Trustee is a combination of individuals and it is an association of individuals in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act and even a Trust either with the single Trustee or two or more Trustees is a “company” in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act and it falls within the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act. Ultimately, at paragraph no.66 of the said judgment, the conclusions are summed up as follows:- “(i) A Trust, either private or public/charitable or otherwise, is a juristic person who is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) A Trust, either private or public/charitable or otherwise, having either a single trustee or two or more trustees, is a company in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (iii) For the offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, committed by the Trust, every trustee, who was incharge of the day-to-day affairs of the Trust shall also be liable for punishment besides the Trust.” 7. Thus, the legal position is made clear from the aforesaid judgment that a Trust is a juristic person and it is covered by Section 141 of the NI Act and it is liable for punishment under Section 138 of the NI Act and also that the Trustee, who is in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Trust, is also liable for punishment besides the Trust. 8. This Court while dealing with the case under Section 18(c) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 where the similar issue whether Trust can be prosecuted or not arose, while relying on the said judgment of the Madras High Court and quoting the same with approval held in the case of Hakkimuddin Taherbhai Shakor (Trustee) & 8 others vs. State of Gujarat & one Anr., (2017) 3 GLH 571 , at paragraph no.16 as follows:- “16. The reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge are quite commendable and I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The principles explained in the said decision can be made directly applicable in the present case. In such circumstances, I hold that a Trust, either private or public/charitable or otherwise, is a juristic person who is liable for punishment for punishment under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. A Trust, either private or public/charitable or otherwise, having either a single trustee or two or more trustees is a company in terms of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. A Trust, either private or public/charitable or otherwise, having either a single trustee or two or more trustees is a company in terms of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. For the offence under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 committed by the Trust, every trustee, who was in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Trust, shall also be liable for punishment besides the Trust.” 9. So, when the legal position is made clear that the Trust is a juristic person and it is liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and that it falls within the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act, the procedure contemplated under Section 141 of the NI Act is to be invariably followed. Section 141 of the NI Act deals with offences by companies. It reads thus:- 141. Offences by companies. — (1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any person liable to punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence: Provided further that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,— (a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.” 10. A reading of the aforesaid section makes it manifest that the company and the firm falls within the purview of the said section and If the person committing an offence is a company or a firm that every person, who at the time of offence was committed, was in-charge of and was responsible to the company or the firm for the conduct of the business of the company or the firm as well as the “company” or the “firm” shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly. So, a careful reading of the aforesaid section makes it manifest that to prosecute a company or a firm for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, both the said company or firm and the person, who at the time the offence was committed was incharge and was responsible for the affairs of the company or a registered firm are liable along with the company or the firm to be prosecuted. The same analogy and the law applies even to the Trust as it is said that the Trust also falls within the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act. In order to prosecute the Trust for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act both the Trust and its Trustee or the person, who is responsible for the affairs of the said Trust and who has issued cheque, shall be the necessary parties to be arrayed as accused in the complaint. In the absence of the Trust being shown as accused, the complaint only against its authorized signatory or the Trustee by itself is not maintainable under law. 11. Therefore, the Court finds merit in the contentions of the applicant and the complaint that was filed before the trial court under Section 138 of the NI Act without showing the Trust as an accused in the complaint is legally not sustainable and maintainable. Therefore, the said complaint is liable to be quashed as allowing the proceedings initiated on it to be continued would amount to abuse of process of court. 12. The application is allowed. Therefore, the said complaint is liable to be quashed as allowing the proceedings initiated on it to be continued would amount to abuse of process of court. 12. The application is allowed. The complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act in Criminal Case No.5269 of 2019 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Himmatnagar, is hereby quashed.