Madras High Court
Mrs.N.Praveena vs M.Suresh Babu on 22 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22.09.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
1.Mrs.N.Praveena
2.B.Somasekhar .. Petitioners
/versus/
M.Suresh Babu .. Respondent
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for records and quash the criminal proceedings in
S.T.C.No.109 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track at
Hosur.
For Petitioners :Mr.M.P.Saravanan
For Respondent :Mr.K.Krishna
-----
Page No.1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
ORDER
The case to quash the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that these petitioners,
who are arrayed as accused 2 and 3 are nothing to do with the proprietary
by name M/s R.V. Information Technologies owned by B.Vidyaranya, the
first accused alleging that since the relatives of the Vidyaranya have been
falsely implicated as co-accused in this case, as if they are running a Firm
M/s R.V.Information Technologies System in Hosur.
2. A short point involved in this case is that whether the third
parties though related to the signatory of the cheque can be roped in the
complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Based on the cheque drawn by the account maintained by the proprietary
concern and signed by the proprietary, this issue has already been settled by
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court (i) Milind
Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M.Khan and others reported in [AIR
Page No.2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
2011 SC 1588]; (ii) Nagarajan v. K.Murugesan reported in [2017 SCC
online Mad 14476]; (iii) P.V.Selvaraj v. Thirupura Chits Private
Limited reported in [2020 SCC Online Mad 8596]; (iv) N.Backiya
Lakshmi v. Palanivel reported in [2017 SCC Online Mad 24066] and
(V)Rahul Sudhakar Anantwar v. Shivakumar Kanhiyalal Shrivastav
reported in [(2019)10 SCC 203] that the principle of vicariously liable has
found in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the offence
committed by the Company cannot be applied to the proprietary firm since
the proprietary firm is not a jurisdictional body unlike company. Therefore,
the case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on
the cheque issued by a Firm, the signatory of the cheque alone can be held
liable for prosecution or if it is a partnership firm, the other partners should
have knowledge and participated in the affairs of the partnership firm and be
roped him as an accused.
Page No.3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
3. This case is concerned, though the complainant claims that
these two petitioners are joint partners of the firm M/s R.V. Information
Technologies System along with Vidhyaranya, the signatory of the cheque.
When the statutory notice was issued to them, the petitioners have informed
the defacto complainant in their reply notice dated 27.04.2019 that the said
R.V.Information Technologies System is exclusively run by Vidyaranya and
these petitioners are no way connected with the said firm and hence,
offences under Sections 138 and 141of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 will not apply. Infact, in the said reply notice, they have also deserved
their right to file defamatory suit against the complainant for causing
vexatious notice.
4. From the facts as found in the notice and the reply notice as
well as the online certificate of registration produced by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, it is clear that R.V.Information Technologies is
a proprietary concern run by Vidhyaranya. Either the first petitioner
Page No.4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
N.Praveena, W/o Vidyaranya or the second petitioner B.Somasekhar,
brother of Vidyaranya have any role in the partnership firm. Even in the
complaint, inspite of the reply notice, the complainant has arrayed these two
petitioners as accused 2 and 3. While arrayed them as accused atleast, the
complainant should have stated in his complaint how these two petitioners
are involved in the management of the proprietary concern or whether they
had knowledge of issuance of these cheques without sufficient fund in the
account. Unfortunately, nothing is whisper about the role of these petitioners
in the said firm. For the said reasons, this Court finds that the complaint
against these two petitioners are not sustainable.
5. Even after being brought to the notice that they have been no
way concerned with the firm issued the cheques, the complaint filed against
them clearly indicating the malicious intention of the defacto complainant.
The complaint is connected with three cheques one for Rs.72,80,000/- and
other two cheques for Rs.70,00,000/- each, totally Rs.2,12,80,000/- Since
Page No.5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
the amount is so huge, by arraying these two petitioners, the malicious
intention of extracting the money is made clear and therefore, the complaint
against these two petitioners is quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
22.09.2022
Index:yes/no
speaking order/non speaking order
ari
To
The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur.
Page No.6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
22.09.2022
Page No.7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
