K CHINNUSAMY Vs. S S DYE CHEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions seek to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 567 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Erode in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

(2.) C.C. No. 567 of 2004 is a case pending adjudication for alleged offences under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 18130 of 2005 are accused Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8, while the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 20867 of 2007 is the fifth accused in the case. The complaint case has been filed on the averments that the first accused-company by name M/s. Adhavan Processors P. Ltd., used to purchase dyes and chemicals from the respondent/complainant on credit for its textile processing and moneys were owing to the company in the course of such business transactions. The accused had acknowledged and confirmed the liability to the respondent/complainant in a sum of Rs. 27,61,963.25 based on their accounts in the proceedings before the BIFR in Case No. 273 of 2000. Towards discharging a part thereof, a cheque dated May 17, 2004, bearing No. 862048 drawn on Bank of Rajasthan, Erode branch in favour of the respondent/complainant and in a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 was issued by the third accused on behalf of the first accused company. The respondent/ complainant had followed the procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and having had no payment despite the statutory notice, preferred a complaint before the lower court. The further contention in the complaint is that the first accused-company and its directors without having sufficient funds in the bank account, issued a cheque to the respondent/complainant with dishonest intention knowing fully well that it would not be duly honoured on its presentation and thereby cheated the complainant.

(3.) Learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that a reading of the complaint would show that only a blanket allegation of the directors being incharge of and responsible for the day-to-day business activities of the first accused-company was made therein. On such an averment, no complaint under Section 138 of the Act could be maintained and it is repeatedly has been so held by the honourable apex court. Reliance was placed on the decision of the honourable apex court in K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora, 2009 152 CompCas 520 wherein it is held as follows (page 536):