Madras High Court
S.Umamaheswari vs M/S.Yoshiaki Chemicals Co (P) Ltd on 1 December, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.20241 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.20241 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.12160 & 12161 of 2017
S.Umamaheswari ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Yoshiaki Chemicals Co (P) Ltd.,
A Private Limited Company
Represented by its Director S.Soobaramanien
No.1/63A, N.H. Main Road,
Pudhupalayam Pirivu, Perumanallur,
Tirupur
Represented by Power of Agent/Accountant,
J.Ranganatha Naidu,
M/s.Yoshiaki Chemicals Co (P) Ltd, Tirupur. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.678 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Court
(Magisterial Level) No.2, Coimbatore, and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
For Respondent : Mr.K.Mylsamy
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20241 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.678 of 2017 on the file of the Fast Track Court
(Magisterial Level) No.2, Coimbatore.
2.The case of the complainant is that, A1 is a Private Limited
Company and A2 is the Managing Director of the A1 company and A3 and
A4 are the Directors of the A1 company, who are actively taking part in the
day to day affairs of the company. A1 company approached the
complainant Company for supply of dyes and chemicals and on account of
the business transactions, an outstanding balance of Rs.80,97,394/- was due
and payable by the accused. When the complainant demanded the money,
A3, as the Director and Authorized Signatory of the A1 Company, issued
two cheques drawn on HDFC Bank for a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/-.
When the cheques were presented by the complainant for encashment, the
same were returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds. Hence, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20241 of 2017
complying with the necessary conditions, the complainant initiated
prosecution against A1 to A4 for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
3.The petitioner before this Court is A4.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present
petitioner/A4 is not a Director, but he is only a shareholder of the company
and further, except making a pleading that this petitioner and the other
Directors are actively in-charge of the Company, there is no other material
available on record to show that the present petitioner is actively involved in
the affairs of the Company. The learned counsel relied on Articles of
Association and various other documents to show that the present petitioner
is not a Director of the Company. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for
quashment of the complaint as against the present petitioner/A4.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant
would submit that, in a similar complaint, the present petitioner is also a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20241 of 2017
party to the compromise and submitted that the case is now posted for trial.
The learned counsel further contended that, all the documents now relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are subsequent to the initiation
of the complaint. Therefore, it is his contention that there are sufficient
averments in the complaint to proceed against the present petitioner/A4 for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the
proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.
6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire
materials available on record.
7.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent,
admittedly, in an earlier complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the petitioner is a party to the compromise. Though much
reliance has been placed on the documents to show that the present
petitioner is not a Director, this Court is of the view that, since the
documents have been obtained at a later point of time, it requires some
proof, and it is for the petitioner/A4 to establish the same before the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20241 of 2017
Court. It is a matter of evidence. The trial Court shall take note of the
Articles of Association of the Company and other documents on the side of
the petitioner to find out as to whether the present petitioner/A4 was actively
involved in the affairs of the Company. However, at this stage, this Court is
not inclined to quash the proceedings.
8.With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is
disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
9.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks indulgence of this Court to grant an order dispensing with the personal
appearance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the
petitioner/A4 before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of
copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
passing of judgment, or on any other date as may be required by the trial
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.20241 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn
10.The trial Court shall dispose the matter as expeditiously as
possible, not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
01.12.2021
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) No.2,
Coimbatore.
Crl.O.P.No.20241 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
