Madras High Court
Frontline Ncr Business Solution vs M/S.Redington (India) Ltd on 6 January, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 06/01/2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.802 of 2022
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.9892, 9894 and 9896 of 2022
1.Frontline NCR Business Solution
P Ltd., Represented by its Director
Mr.Pushpesh Kumar Sinha,
(A Company registered under
Companies Act, 2013)
Naraina Industrial Area,
B-48, Ground Floor,
Phase-2,
Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110 028.
2.Mr.Sanjay Sinha,
Director,
Frontline NCR Business Solution
P Ltd., Naraina Industrial Area,
B-48, Phase-2, Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110 028.
3.Mr.Pushpesh Kumar Sinha,
Director,
Frontline NCR Business Solution
P Ltd.,
Naraina Industrial Area,
B-48, Phase-2, Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110 028.
4.Mr.Narendrakumar Singh,
Director,
Frontline NCR Business Solution
P Ltd.,
Naraina Industrial Area,
B-48, Phase-2, Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110 028.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
2
5.Mr.Birendrakumar,
Director,
Frontline NCR Business Solution P Ltd.,
Naraina Industrial Area,
B-48, Phase-2, Industrial Area,
New Delhi-110 028. : Revision Petitioners/A1 to A5
Vs.
M/s.Redington (India) Ltd.,
Represented by Mr.Bharani Yadev,
(vide resolution dated 11 Nvo 2020)
Legal Executive,
C-48B, First Floor,
11th Cross Road,
Thillainagar,
Tiruchirappalli-620 018. : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections
397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for
records pertaining to the order, dated 06/01/2021 in STC
No.51 of 2021 taking cognizance of the offence under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the
Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli and set aside
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Jayavel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan
O R D E R
This criminal revision has been filed seeking to
set aside the order, dated 06/01/2021 in STC No.51 of 2021
taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate
No.IV, Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The facts in brief:-
The respondent herein filed a private complaint
under section 200 Cr.P.C stating that it is a Public
Limited Company and doing the business of distribution of
IT and NON-IT products. In the course of the above said
business activities, the accused persons were also having
business dealings, they have placed orders and purchased
the valuable articles, etc. through the invoices as
detailed in the complaint.
S.No. Date of Invoice Invoice Nos. Amount
01. 13.02.2019 B049859 4832836.32
02. 14.02.2019 B049863 1344350.40
03. 14.02.2019 B049864 3746943.68
04. 14.02.2019 B049865 753042.96
05. 07.03.2019 B049947 1068072.28
06. 08.03.2019 F474223 1397384.30
07. 08.03.2019 F474225 4616838.50
08. 15.03.2019 F474753 683421.78
09. 18.03.2019 B049965 6065933.96
TOTAL 24508824.18
So in discharge of the above said liability, the
complainant issued a cheque for Rs.2,45,08,824/- drawn on
Axis Bank Ltd., Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110 060 and that
was deposited for payment through their Banker namely HDFC
Bank, Thillai Nagar, Trichy, on 04/11/2020, but that came
to be dishonoured due to the reason “Drawer's sign
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
differs”. The intimation was received by the company, on
07/11/2020. They issued a statutory notice, dated
11/11/2020 to all the accused persons. Even though, they
received the notice, they failed to make the payment. But a
request has been received, on 02/12/2020 making untenable
averments.
3.The first accused is the Limited Company and A2
to A5 are the Directors. They personally involved in the
above said transactions. So they were jointly and severally
liable.
4.The above said case was taken cognizance by the
trial court, on 06/01/2021 and summons were issued. After
that, this revision petition has been filed making several
grounds.
5.Heard both sides.
6.It is a business transaction issue involving the
issuance of cheque and subsequent dishonour, etc., facts.
On the face of it, even though, the case appears to be
simple, several grounds have been raised by the petitioners
stating that no company seal is found in the cheque and who
issued the cheque is not identified, since the cheque has
been dishonoured due to the difference in signature; So the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
is not attracted.
7.Apart from that, it is also stated that
sufficient materials have not been placed before the trial
court to take cognizance of the case. So also the
jurisdiction point has also been raised that there was no
legally enforceable liability between the accused persons
and the complainant.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
went to the extent of stating that as contemplated under
section 202(2) Cr.P.C, the trial court ought to have sent
the complaint for proper investigation by police.
9.Now let us straightaway go to the documents that
are filed by the complainant. The copy of the invoices to
show the transactions between the parties have been
produced. The disputed cheque copy is also available,
wherein we see that the drawee name is mentioned as
'Redington India Limited', the complainant herein, it was
stated to be signed by one of the Authorised signatories on
behalf of the company called 'FRONTLINE (NCR) BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS PVT LTD'. It is a printed cheque leaf, from
which, it appears that it has been signed and who made the
signature in the cheque is not known. Even the complainant
and the petitioners herein are not able to say anything.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioners simply says that they did not know the
signature. But as mentioned earlier, it is a printed cheque
leaf stating that it is issued in the name of the
petitioners' company. So they cannot disown the same. On
what ground, the above said signature has been made by the
concerned person and what is the capacity of the concerned
person is a matter for consideration by the trial court.
More particularly, in reply to the statutory notice, the
1st petitioner as Authorised Signatory sent reply, on
02/12/2020 stating that they have received the
communication, stating the particulars are incorrect and
they will face the litigation as per law, if any. Nowhere,
it has been stated that the above said cheque was not
issued by the company and that too by Authorised Signatory.
But the signature differ the Authorised Signatory in the
reply notice from that one mentioned in the cheque. So as
mentioned above, who made the signature is a matter for the
consideration by the trial court.
10.Since this criminal revision has been preferred
against the order of taking cognizance by the trial court,
factual issues cannot be taken into account and gone into.
When sufficient materials have been placed before the trial
court for taking cognizance of the case, I find absolutely
no illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance by the
trial court. So the contention that has been raised by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioners that in case of offence under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, only the courts in Chennai
is having jurisdiction, cannot also be taken into account
at this stage, because the parties cannot confer the
jurisdiction upon the court, which does not have. This is
the fundamental principle. Even the terms and conditions of
the contract have also been produced. So it appears that
they are admitting the transactions and this is sufficient
for taking cognizance.
11.With regard to the issue, whether the offence
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will be
attracted, when the cheque has been disputed due to the
signature differs, has also been canvassed by the
petitioners. But the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in the case of Vinod Tanna Vs. Zaheer Siddiqui
[(2022)7 SCC 541], the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court shows that even the cheque dishonoured due to
the differ in signature, the complaint under section 138 of
the Negotiable Instrument Act can be maintained. So this
cannot be taken advantage by the petitioners now. Whether
there was any sufficient fund available in the Bank account
at the time of issuing the cheque can also be a matter for
consideration by the trial court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.The further contention is that since the company
has been made as an accused, the complainant ought to have
mentioned, who is the Authorised Signatory and who is
responsible for the day today affairs. For that purpose,
they relied upon the order of this court made in the case
of Vayam GMV Intelligent Transport Pvt. Ltd., Vs.
M/s.Interlace India Pvt. Ltd (2021-2-LW(Crl)718, in respect
of the criminal prosecution against the Directors of the
company. Now it is more or less well settled, the role
played by the concerned person must be clearly stated and
the person, who is responsible for the day today affairs
must also be clearly stated, there can be no quarrel on the
proposition of law. But here, as mentioned earlier, there
is a denial on the part of the petitioners to have issued
the cheque. But, who issued the cheque, as mentioned
earlier, is a matter for trial and the complainant is not
in a position to identify the Authorised Signatory. The
company ought to have given proper reply. But they have
simply sent a reply disputing the liability.
13.Another important factor, which came to light is
that warrant was issued against Narendrakumar Singh, one of
the Directors of the company and he filed a petition to
recall the warrant and that was also dismissed by the trial
court, against which, SLP was preferred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14.It appears that no steps have been taken and the
petitioner filed Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal No.555/2021
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that was also
dismissed, by order, dated 07-02-2022.
15.Another factor is that the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners issued a notice to the
complainant company for appointing an Arbitrator. Having
taken all these possible steps, it is not fair on the part
of the petitioners to question the very cognizance of the
offence itself. So, I find absolutely no merit in this
criminal revision.
16.In the result, this criminal revision fails and
the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
06/01/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
The Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.802 of 2022
06/01/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
