7. In this matter, as is evident from the record, opposite party no. 2 was employed in the firm/company PARISUDH Pvt. Ltd.. He resigned from the service thereafter outstanding remuneration etc. is said to have been paid through five cheques. Out of them four cheques were encashed but the cheque in question was not encashed. A legal notice was sent by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant. A reply was also made. It is also evident from the record that a civil suit for recovery of the excess amount said to have been paid to the opposite party no. 2 is still pending. Despite this fact that cheque in question was issued on behalf of PARISUDH Machine Pvt. Ltd., complaint was filed only arraying the applicant as an accused. If the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabitha Ramamurthy case (supra) is taken into consideration in context with the submissions raised on behalf of applicant, it was mandatory for the opposite party no. 2/complainant to array the company/firm as an accused in the complaint itself. Since company/firm has not been arrayed as an accused, therefore, in the opinion of Court, applicant cannot be prosecuted. In the facts and circumstances of the case prosecution of the applicant along with company/firm is necessary then and then only the criminal prosecution can continue. Thus, summoning order passed in the matter against the applicant is not sustainable. Director of the Company or firm or the Signatory of the cheque in question in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be prosecuted independently.
