Madras High Court
Muthukumar vs J.Nithya on 8 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.10410 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.5392 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 08.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.10410 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.5392 of 2019
Muthukumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
J.Nithya ..Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482
of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.1036 of
2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Subbarayalu
For Respondent : Mr.C.Gunasekaran
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the private
complaint initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10410 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.5392 of 2019
2. The short point canvased by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the subject cheque was issued by Susin Itork India
Private Limited, signed by its authorized signatory. Whereas, the
statutory notice was issued to Susin Technologies Private Limited and
one Muthukumar, who is the authorized signatory of Susin Itork India
Private Limited. The statutory notice was duly stating that there is
dispute regarding the quality of the work done by the complainant and
therefore, there is no due payable. However, the complaint was filed and
taken cognizance.
3. The learned counsel submits that while the drawer of
the cheque being M/s.Susin Itork India Private Limited, prosecution
cannot be laid against the sister's concern. In support of his submission,
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada Vs.
Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC
661 relied and Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act referred to
plead that the vicarious liability on behalf of the company can only to be
fastened upon the person who are responsible for the management of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10410 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.5392 of 2019
company and who had knowledge of issuance of the cheque.
4. In the entire complaint, this Court cannot find how the
petitioners 2 and 3 can be arrayed as accused without any averment in the
complaint about their responsibility in the management of Susin Itork
India Private Limited, who is the drawer of the cheque. Since the
complaint is provided all the details and the statutory notice itself is
caused to a wrong company, the private complaint under Section 138 of
N.I.Act is not legally sustainable. Hence, this Criminal Original
Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
08.09.2022
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
To
The Fast Track Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.10410 of 2019
and Crl.M.P.No.5392 of 2019
rpl
Crl.O.P.No.10410 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.5392 of 2019
08.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
