M.SNEHALATA DADHA Vs. RATAN KAWAR
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1991 of 2014 on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arraigned as accused A3, A5 to A8 in C.C.No.1991 of 2014, initiated by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners have been implicated as an accused on their capacity of the Directors of the first accused company. The petitioners no way connected with the transactions as alleged by the respondent and they are the neither signatory of the cheque nor participated in the day to day affairs of the company.
2.1. Even according to the complaint, the fourth accused only signed the cheque. More over the fourth accused signed only in the blank stamp papers which was obtained under coercion and later on fabricated by the complainant to suit their convenience. He further submitted that even as per the complaint there is absolutely no avernment that the petitioners are incharge of the company and they are actively participated in the day to day affairs of the company. Therefore, there is no liability on the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Without considering the above facts and circumstances, the learned Magistrate have taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 r/w 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Further he submitted that in fact the petitioners 1 to 3 had resigned from the company as early as on 31.03.2005 and also submitted Form-32 before the Registrar of Company. As far as the petitioners 4 and 5 are concerned they never being acted as Directors of the company and they have been falsely implicated in this case, since they happen to be the son and daughter of one M.Maher Dadha, who resigned from the company on 31.03.2005 and also filed Form-32. Therefore, prayed for quashing the entire proceedings.
(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners along with other accused persons have committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The first accused is the private company and other accused 2 to 8 are in charge of the company and they are the responsible for the conduct of day to day business affairs of the first accused company. There was an amount due towards payable by the petitioners for the value of the diamond, gold, gold jewelry and silver articles, which was jointly stolen and misappropriated by illegal broke open the complainant's locker. Pursuant to the settlement and pursuant to the letter of undertaking dated 01.07.2010, they issued 10 cheques drawn on ICICI Bank and the same were deposited for collection and the same were returned for the reasons that "Account closed". Therefore, the respondent issued statutory notice and thereafter initiated proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. There are specific avernments and allegations as against the petitioners and they are actively participated in the day to day affairs of the company and they also involved in the transactions. Therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate rightly have taken cognizance as against the petitioners and as such he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.