Madras High Court
Smt.Alka Kumar vs M/S.Dhoot Fabrics on 16 February, 2021
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
and Crl. MP Nos.197 & 198 of 2021
Smt.Alka Kumar ... Petitioner /Accused 3
vs.
M/s.Dhoot Fabrics
Rep. By its Power Agent,
Vijayakumar,
No.280, Cutchery Street,
Erode 638 001,
Erode Taluk and District. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.T.C.No.530 of 2018 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.II, Erode, quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Prathap
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in
S.T.C. No.530 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track
Court No.II, Erode.
2. The respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner and two others. The
petitioner has been arrayed as A3 in this complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been added as an accused only on the ground that she is a
Director in the A1 Company and the allegations made in the complaint does
not satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his
submissions relied upon the judgment of this Court in Anil Pathak v.
Larsen and Toubro Limited, reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 3522.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
necessary allegations have been made in the complaint against the petitioner
also and the liability that was pointed out in the statutory notice was not
even refuted by the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that
the petitioner is none other than the wife of A2 and she is also a Director,
who was incharge and responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs
of the Company. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioner
has to necessarily face the trial before the Court below and establish her
innocence.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side and the materials available on record.
6. The allegation made against the petitioner in the complaint is
extracted hereunder:
“4. The complainant begs to submit that, the
complainant is a registered partnership firm and
doing business in textiles under the name and style
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
of M/s.Doot Fabrics. The accused No.1, is a
Private Limited Company and doing business in
textiles. The accused No.2 and 3 are the directors
of the accused No.1. They are looking after day to
day business of the accused No.1. The accused
No.2 and 3 on behalf of the accused No.1 used to
purchase textile goods on credit basis from the
complainant under various invoices as detailed
hereunder...”
7. In the present case admittedly the signatory of the cheque on behalf
of A1 Company was A2. If the petitioner has to be roped in as an accused
on the ground that she was a Director of A1 Company, the requirements of
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, will have to be satisfied.
8. To fasten the vicarious liability under Section 141 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, a complainant should specifically allege in the
complaint, as to how and in what manner, the concerned accused person
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
was responsible or incharge of the conduct of the business of the Company.
9. This position of law has been made very clear in the judgment cited
by the learned counsel for the petitioner after referring to all the earlier
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A mere reproduction or
repetition of the words found under Section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, does not satisfy the requirements to rope in the petitioner
as an accused in this case.
10. In view of the above discussion, the continuation of the
proceedings as against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court which
requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. In the result, the proceedings in S.T.C. No.530 of 2018 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Erode is quashed insofar
as the petitioner is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
12. The Court below is directed to proceed further with the complaint
against the other accused persons and complete the proceedings within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
This Criminal Original Petition is allowed with the above directions.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
jv
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court No.II,
Erode.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
jv
Crl. OP No.384 of 2021
and Crl. MP Nos.197 & 198 of 2021
16.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
