Nand Kishore Sonthalia vs M/S.Religare Finvest Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 1813 Mad

                                                                   1           Crl.OP.No.360 of 2017

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 27.01.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                                  Crl.O.P.No.360 of 2017
                                           and Crl.MP.Nos.239 & 240 of 2017
                     Nand Kishore Sonthalia                                        ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.

                     M/s.Religare Finvest Limited
                     Rep. By its Power Agent
                     Mr.R.Rajeswaran
                     The OVAL, 5th floor, No.10 & 12
                     Venkatnarayana Road,
                     Chennai 600 017.                                            ...Respondent


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
                     Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the complaint against the
                     petitioner in C.C.No.7083 of 2014 pending on the file of the Fast Track
                     Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.III, Saidapet @ Chennai.


                                     For Petitioner       : M/s.A.Thirumaran

                                     For Respondents      : No appearance

                                                       ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.7083 of 2014 on the file of Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate

Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai.

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

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

Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has been arrayed as A2 in the

proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court since

the petitioner was not even the Director of the Company during the

relevant point of time and he was also not the signatory in the cheque.

The learned counsel further submitted that there are absolutely no

averments against the petitioner in the complaint as to how he was

involved in the day today affairs of the Company. The learned counsel

relied upon Form-32 which shows that the petitioner had resigned from

the post of Director with effect from 03.09.2013.

4. The respondent has been served with notice and the name has

also been printed in the cause list and there is no representation either in

person or through counsel.

5. A careful reading of the complaint filed by the respondent

shows that the cheque was issued in the course of business transaction on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

01.09.2014. The petitioner is not the signatory in the cheque. The

specific case of the petitioner is that he was not even a Director at the

time when the cheque was issued and for that purpose Form-32 has been

relied upon which shows that the petitioner had resigned from the post of

Director with effect from 03.09.2013. This Form has been issued by the

Registrar of Companies.

6. It is also seen from the complaint that there are no specific

allegations against the petitioner as to how he was involved in the day to

day affairs of the Company.

7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this Court

while considering a quash petition can rely upon the defence document if

it is unimpeachable and sterling in quality. Useful reference can be made

in this regard to the judgment in the case of Lachhman P.Udhani and

others Vs Redington (India) Ltd., rep. By Mr.V.S.N.Muthy, Senior

Executive – Accounts, SPL, Guindy House, No.95, Mount Road,

Guindy, Chennai 32 reported in 2006 (4) CTC 43 and in the case of

Anita Malhotra Vs Apparel Export Promotion Council and another

reported in (2012) 1 SCC 520.

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

8. In the present case Form-32 has been issued by the Registrar

of Companies and it has also been duly certified. It shows that the

petitioner was not holding the post of Director at the time when the

cheque was issued. In view of the same, the continuation of the

proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of

Court and it requires the interference of this Court.

9. In view of the above discussion, the proceedings in

C.C.No.7083 of 2014 on the file of Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate

Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai is hereby quashed in so far as the

petitioner is concerned. This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly

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

proceedings in C.C.No.7083 of 2014 within a period of two weeks from

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

miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

                                                                            27.01.2021

                    Index          : Yes / No
                    Internet     : Yes / No
                    speaking order/non-speaking order
                    dpq
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/




                                                               N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
                                                                                              dpq




                     To

1. The Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai

Crl.O.P.No.360 of 2017 and Crl.MP.Nos.239 & 240 of 2017

27.01.2021

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