Facts:

• Mr. G. Ramesh was the Appellant and the complainant in the original complaint.
• Mr. Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal, the 1st Respondent and 2nd accused, was a partner at the partnership firm Vainqueur Corporate Services(First accused), and the 3rd accused was the Managing Partner/Director.
• The third accused was the Managing Director, and the second accused was a partner at M/s Vainqueur Corporate Services. This Hyderabad-based firm performs data entry work and enters into subcontracts with third parties to delegate that work.
• The accused persons had subcontracted data entry work to the Appellant-complainant with the caution deposit of Rs. 1,00,000.
• The case was filed because the cheques issued by the first accused were dishonoured for payment of data entry work done by the Appellant-complainant.
• The complaint was filed on 19 September 2011 before the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (SJMFC), Mahabubnagar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, as the cheques issued by the Respondents were dishonoured.
• The first Respondent filed proceedings before the High Court of Hyderabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which quashed the proceedings before the SJMFS.
• Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant filed the present appeal.

Background:

Proceedings before Special Judicial Magistrate First Class(SJMFC)

• The complaint was filed on 19 September 2011 before the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahabubnagar, alleging that cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
• The court issued non-bailable warrants against the first respondent for non-appearance, but later they were recalled.

Proceeding before the High Court of Judicature of Hyderabad

• The first Respondent filed proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to challenge and dismiss the legal proceedings before SJMFS.
• The High Court quashed the proceedings, stating that the complaint's averments were insufficient to implicate the first Respondent in criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881.
• The High Court's decision was based on the assessment that the complaint did not adequately establish the first Respondent’s involvement in the alleged offence.

Proceeding before the Supreme Court:

• Thus, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court for a review of the High Court's decision regarding the adequacy of the complaint's averments.

Main Issue:

Whether the averments in the complaint were sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 141(1)?