N.G.Thangavel vs Sree Venkateswara Fabrics
2021 Latest Caselaw 9387 Mad

                                                                            Crl.O.P.No.1746 of 2018

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 09.04.2021

                                                          CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                              Crl.O.P No.1746 of 2018
                                                         &
                                            Crl.M.P.Nos.669 & 670 of 2018


                  N.G.Thangavel                                                       .. Petitioner

                                                     Vs.


                  Sree Venkateswara Fabrics
                  Rep. By its Prop.
                  P.Seethappan,
                  S/o.Palanisamy,
                  382, Nasiyanur Road, Narayanavalasu,
                  Erode.                                                         .. Respondent


                  PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

                  Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the case in

                  S.T.C.No.676/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) court

                  No.II, Erode and quash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned.

                                         For Petitioner     : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
                                         For Respondent     : Mr.M.Guruprasad


                 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                            Crl.O.P.No.1746 of 2018

                                                      ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in

S.T.C.No.676 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

(Fast Track) Court II, Erode.

2. The respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against M/s.Nishok Impex which is

claimed to be a partnership firm. The petitioner has been arrayed as A3 in

the complaint by describing him as partner of the firm.

3. The petitioner has filed this quash petition mainly on the ground

that the cheque was signed by A2 on behalf of A1 and the respondent has

not made any averments as to how the petitioner is responsible for running

the business or involved in the day-to-day affairs of the business of A1.

According to the petitioner, the ingredients of Section 141 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act has not been satisfied in the complaint and therefore, the

complaint is liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.1746 of 2018

4. I heard Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.M.Guruprasad, the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Insofar as the company or partnership firm is concerned, every

director or partner as the case may be, who are added as an accused in the

complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be

shown to have been in-charge and responsible for conduct of the business.

In the present case, the only averment that has been made in the complaint

against the petitioner is that the petitioner had the knowledge about the

cheque issued in favour of the respondent by A1 and A2. Except for this

averment, there is absolutely no other averment made against the petitioner.

6. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this

Court that the complaint should specifically state as to how and in what

manner a director or a partner as the case may be, was in-charge of and

responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or firm and a

mere bald statement in the complaint will not be sufficient to satisfy the

requirements of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Vicarious

liability must be pleaded and proved and it can never be inferred. Useful

reference can be made to the judgment reported in Anil Pathak and Others

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.1746 of 2018

Vs.:Larsen and Toubro Limited reported in 2019(1)MLJ(Crl)385.

7. Earlier, this Court by an order dated 03.02.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.415

of 2018 quashed the complaint in respect of the co-accused. Considering the

facts of the case and the proceedings was quashed by this Court for the

similarly placed person.

8. In view of the above, this Court has absolutely no hesitation in

quashing the complaint filed against the petitioner and the same is quashed

insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

9. In the result, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.676 of 2017, pending on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Erode, is hereby quashed, insofar as the

petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is

allowed and there shall be a direction to the Court below to complete the

proceedings in S.T.C.No.676 of 2017, within a period of six months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

09.04.2021

msrm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.1746 of 2018

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate (Fast track) Court II, Erode.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.1746 of 2018

M,DHANDAPANI, J

msrm

Crl.O.P No.1746 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.Nos.669 & 670 of 2018

09.04.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/