Ramesh vs Sree Venkateswara Fabrics
2021 Latest Caselaw 2414 Mad

                                                                              Crl.O.P.No.415 of 2018

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 03.02.2021

                                                             CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                                  Crl.O.P No.415 of 2018
                                                             &
                                              Crl.M.P.Nos.130 & 131 of 2018


                  Ramesh                                                        .. Petitioner

                                                       vs.


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


                  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.415 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 A4 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.

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.415 of 2018

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 Vs.:Larsen and Toubro Limited

reported in 2019(1)MLJ(Crl)385.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.O.P.No.415 of 2018

7. 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.

8. 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 two months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

                                                                                         03.02.2021

                  Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order

                  Index            : Yes/No

                  Internet         : Yes/No

                  kal





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                      Crl.O.P.No.415 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.415 of 2018

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

kal

Crl.O.P No.415 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.Nos.130 & 131 of 2018

03.02.2021

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