Madras High Court
M/S.J.Trading Company vs V.Balaji on 2 February, 2021
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.258 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.258 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2171 of 2020
1. M/s.J.Trading Company
Partnership Firm by its Managing Partner,
J.Ravikumar,
2. J.Ravikumar .. Petitioners
Vs.
V.Balaji .. Respondent
Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w. Section 401
of Cr.P.C., to call for records pertaining to the order dated 08.01.2020 made in
Crl.M.P.No.3323 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.87 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level) at Theni and to set aside the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Lawrance
For Respondent : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for records pertaining
to the order dated 08.01.2020 made in Crl.M.P.No.3323 of 2019 in S.T.C.No.87
of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate
Level) at Theni and to set aside the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.258 of 2020
2.The revision petitioners were cited as accused by the respondent /
complainant in S.T.C.No.87 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court (Magistrate Level), Theni. The respondent / complainant filed a
petition in Crl.M.P.No.3323 of 2019, to amend the cause title of the complaint.
That petition was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
(Magistrate Level), Theni, on 08.01.2020. Against the same, the petitioner
preferred this Revision.
3. On the side of the revision petitioners, it is stated that the respondent
has mentioned the first revision petitioner as a Partnership Firm. Now, after the
examination of D.W.2, the respondent / complainant has filed a petition to
amend the cause title portion of the complaint. The petitioner has mentioned
that the petitioner is a proprietary concerned in the reply notice and at the time
of 313 questioning. But, without considering the same, the respondent /
complainant has lodged the complaint, as if the first respondent is a partnership
Firm and the respondent is not entitled to change the cause title at the later stage
of the case and prayed the impugned order to be dismissed. It is further argued
that the petitioner is denying the entire transaction under Section 141 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and hence allowing an amendment petition is not
necessary. The nature of the case has to be considered even in the notice sent by
the respondent / complainant. The details of the transaction, the mode of
payment were not discussed. The revision petitioner is not denying the entire
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.258 of 2020
transaction. The trial will be affected in carrying out this amendment. The
nature of the business transaction was not at all mentioned in the notice and
prayed the impugned order to be set aside.
4. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the revision petitioner has
raised the points during the time of trial. All the cause list is mistakenly
mentioned, it is only a curable defect and the same was allowed by the Judcicial
Magistrate, Theni based on Various judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
prayed the petition to be dismissed.
5. A perusal of the records reveals that the respondent / complainant
issued notice to the revision petitioner / respondent therein mentioning the first
respondent as a partnership firm. In the reply notice, there was only a vague
allegation that the legal notice was not sent in accordance advantage with the
Negotiable Instruments Act. In the reply it was not specifically stated whether
the first respondent is a partnership firm or a proprietary concerned. The trial
Court has observed that even at the time of questioning under Section 351
Cr.P.C., this issue was not raised by the revision petitioners. Only in the written
submission under section 313 Cr.P.C, the revision petitioner has stated that the
first respondent is not a partnership firm, but, he also stated that the petitioner is
a proprietary concerned. Even in the revision petition the first respondent is
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.258 of 2020
mentioned only as partnership firm represented by his Managing Partner. The
revision petitioner has failed to produce any document to show whether the first
revision petitioner is a partnership firm or a proprietary concern.
6. It is seen that only during the examination of D.W.2, viz., Vinothkumar,
Assistant Manager, IDBI Bank, the respondent herein / complainant came to
know that the first revision petitioner is a proprietary concerned. The revision
petitioner can raise his objection regarding the transaction and the mode of
payment, in the original proceedings in S.T.C.No.87 of 2017. The petition in
Cr.M.P.No.3323 of 2019, is only for amending the cause title. In what way the
revision petitioner can be prejudiced is not stated in the revision petition. In the
revision petition, it is not clearly stated whether the first respondent is a
partnership firm or a proprietary concern. Even this petition is filed representing
the first revision petitioner as a partnership firm.
7. In the above circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in the revision
petition and hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.258 of 2020
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is
the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level)
Theni
2.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.258 of 2020
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.258 of 2020
02.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
