O.Venkatachalapathy vs S.Govindarajan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11150 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11150 Mad
Judgement Date : 27 June, 2022

Madras High Court

O.Venkatachalapathy vs S.Govindarajan on 27 June, 2022

                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.26883 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 27.06.2022

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                                              Crl.O.P.No.26883 of 2018
                                                         and
                                        Crl.M.P.Nos.15508 and 15510 of 2018



                     O.Venkatachalapathy                                     ... Petitioner




                                                         Vs.




                     S.Govindarajan                                          ...Respondent



                     PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
                     482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the complaint dated 09.10.2018 and entire
                     records in S.T.C.No.2688 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial
                     Magistrate No.IV, Salem and quash the same with respect to the
                     petitioner herein.


                                   For Petitioner   : Mr.J.Hariharan

                                   For Respondent   : Mr.K.Selvaraj




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/7
                                                                          Crl.O.P.No.26883 of 2018



                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the

complaint dated 09.10.2018 and entire records in S.T.C.No.2688 of

2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem and

quash the same with respect to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner herein is A3 in S.T.C.No.2688 of 2017. The respondent

herein filed a cheque bounced case under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, for the cheque issued to the tune of Rs.5

lakhs. After issuing the statutory notice, the above S.T.C was filed and

taken on file. Challenging the taking cognizance of the case against

the third accused, he has preferred this petition for quashment.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant

submitted that, as against the very same set of facts, totally 9 cases

have been filed, out of which, 8 cases had already been dismissed by

this Court dated 07.10.2021 in Crl.O.P.Nos.26090, 26094, 26098,

26099, 26100, 26102, 26892 and 26932 of 2018 wherein it is

observed that:-

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

Crl.O.P.No.26883 of 2018

"7. Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute involved in the present case is a triable issue and the grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner are all factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Court and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below. Hence this Court is not inclined to quash the complaints. However, his appearance before the trial Court is dispensed with except for their appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence of the petitioners is necessary, the trial Court, at its wisdom, shall direct their appearance on those days."

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

Crl.O.P.No.26883 of 2018

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 contended that

he is a partner on the date of issuance of the cheques and he is not an

active partner in the partnership firm run by the first accused and he

was already relieved from the partnership firm on 08.06.2017, while

the cheque was issued only on 16.07.2017.

5. On a perusal of the averments in the petition filed, I find

that the petitioner/A3 has taken a plea that on the date of issuance of

the cheque namely on 08.06.2017, he is no longer in the partnership

firm. However, I find that, from the petition, the first accused has

moved the application before the Registrar of Firms which was