Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Bishan Chand Carg vs Moniesh Sajjan Raj on 14 June, 2022

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N.Sathish Kumar

                                                                                  Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       Dated: 14.06.2022

                                                            Coram:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                                    Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022
                                                              and
                                                    Crl.M.P.No.7077 of 2022

                1. Bishan Chand Carg

                2. Rakesh Kumar Carge                                            ... Petitioners

                                                              Vs.


                Moniesh Sajjan Raj                                                ...Respondent


                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal

                Procedure Code, praying to call for records and quash the complaint case No.STC

                95 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem.


                                   For Petitioner      : Mr.Rahul Ranjan




                Page 1 / 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022

                                                    ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in STC No.95 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Salem.

2. The complaint has been lodged under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused including the first accused /the partnership firm and other partners.

3. It is the case of the complainant that they had supplied Cloves worth about Rs.69,21,903/- from his Mumbai office and the accused are liable to pay Rs.16,21,903/- for the above said transaction. Similarly the accused also liable to pay Rs.1,08,000,00/- towards supply of Cloves effected from their Delhi Office. Towards the above said liability, the accused had issued 3 cheques bearing Nos.662304, 662305 and 662306 dated 30.08.2019, 30.09.2019 and 30.10.2019 respectively for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- each in favour of Montel, drawn at Union Bank Khari Baoli Branch, New Delhi. When the above cheques were presented Page 2 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022 for incashment through the complainant's bank, the same were dishonoured on the ground of funds in sufficient. After issuing statutory notice, the present complaint has been filed.

4. Now the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking to quash the above complaint mainly on the ground that the cheque book containing the cheques in question were already stolen in respect of which, FIR has also been registered on 14.04.2019 followed by a publication effected on 02.05.2019. Thereafter, the bank also intimated the complainant/the petitioners' firm that they have destroyed the cheque books. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these cheques have been misused after they were stolen.

5. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint has been filed only under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and not under Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, there cannot be any prosecution against the other partners of the firm. The yet another submission of the learned Counsel is that these petitioners are not signatories to the cheques and only the other partner signed the same and therefore, there cannot be Page 3 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022 any prosecution against these petitioners. He also placed reliance of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supereme Court reported in Alka Khandu Avhad Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra & Another, reported in Crl.A.No.258 of 2021.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the complaint and also the materials available on record.

7. At the outset, this Court is unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to quash the proceedings on the ground of theft of cheques merely on the basis of registration of FIR and publication effected in this regard. Whether the cheques in question were actually stolen or the FIR has been registered only as defence for the proceedings is a matter of evidence and that could be seen only in the trial and it requires proof. Merely on the basis of one side submission, theft of cheques cannot be presumed. The other submission highlighted by the complaint is that the same has been filed only based on the ledger account and therefore there is no legally enforcible debt. It is relevant to note that once the cheque is issued and got dishonoured and statutory notice is followed, it gives rise to the cause of action. The presumption available under Page 4 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022 Section 118 and 139 Negotiable Instruments Act get attracted to the Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, the presumption also includes about consideration, execution and time etc. This has been rightly held by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan reported in Crl.A.1020 of 2010. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to dislodge the statutory presumption available u/s.118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by bringing the probability in the evidence and not mere submissions in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is a matter of evidence. The further contention of the petitioners is that they had not signed the cheques and some other partner had signed the cheques and hence there cannot be a prosecution against them. This Court in view of such contention also is not maintainable since in the very complaint itself, it is alleged that the petitioners and the other partner were in the helm of the day to day affairs of the firm. It is to be noted that every partner is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business of the firm. Therefore, any act done by one partner, certainly would bind on the other partner and joint liability also is attached. When such view of the matter, such contentions are also not maintainable. As far as the contention that the petitioners had not signed the cheques, will not make any difference since the cheques were issued on behalf of the firm. Page 5 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022

8. Yet another submission made by the counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings was initiated only under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and not under Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act. It is relevant to note that Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act relates to the offences by the company and not applicable to individuals. Therefore, merely because the particular Section has been omitted in the complaint, the liability for the offence cannot be wiped out. Mere omission to include a provision of law in the complaint, is not a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is in different context wherein the husband and wife were prosecuted on the ground of joint liability and the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the fact that there were no joint account maintained by them and the cheque was issued only by the husband, quashed the complaint against the wife who was arrayed as A2. Therefore, the same is not applicable to the present case and this Court finds no merit in this case. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. It is well open to the petitioners to raise all their defence in the trial to prove their allegations.

Page 6 / 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners. Considering the age of the petitioners and they are also residents of far away place, this Court dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the Trial Court except for receipt of copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., or on any other date as may be required by the Trial Court. They shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, when they are examined in Chief.

10. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.




                                                                                             14.06.2022

                Index      : Yes
                Internet   : Yes
                Speaking Order

                ksa-2




                Page 7 / 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                             Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022



                                      N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
                                                    ksa-2




                                  Crl.O.P.No.13163 of 2022 and
                                       Crl.M.P.No.7077 of 2022




                                                     14.06.2022




                Page 8 / 8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis