Madras High Court
Nand Kishore Sonthalia vs M/S.Religare Finvest Limited on 27 January, 2021
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
1 Crl.OP.No.360 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.360 of 2017
and Crl.MP.Nos.239 & 240 of 2017
Nand Kishore Sonthalia ... Petitioner
Vs.
M/s.Religare Finvest Limited
Rep. By its Power Agent
Mr.R.Rajeswaran
The OVAL, 5th floor, No.10 & 12
Venkatnarayana Road,
Chennai 600 017. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the complaint against the
petitioner in C.C.No.7083 of 2014 pending on the file of the Fast Track
Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.III, Saidapet @ Chennai.
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Thirumaran
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7083 of 2014 on the file of Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2 Crl.OP.No.360 of 2017
2. The respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has been arrayed as A2 in the proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court since the petitioner was not even the Director of the Company during the relevant point of time and he was also not the signatory in the cheque. The learned counsel further submitted that there are absolutely no averments against the petitioner in the complaint as to how he was involved in the day today affairs of the Company. The learned counsel relied upon Form-32 which shows that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Director with effect from 03.09.2013.
4. The respondent has been served with notice and the name has also been printed in the cause list and there is no representation either in person or through counsel.
5. A careful reading of the complaint filed by the respondent shows that the cheque was issued in the course of business transaction on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3 Crl.OP.No.360 of 2017 01.09.2014. The petitioner is not the signatory in the cheque. The specific case of the petitioner is that he was not even a Director at the time when the cheque was issued and for that purpose Form-32 has been relied upon which shows that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Director with effect from 03.09.2013. This Form has been issued by the Registrar of Companies.
6. It is also seen from the complaint that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner as to how he was involved in the day to day affairs of the Company.
7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this Court while considering a quash petition can rely upon the defence document if it is unimpeachable and sterling in quality. Useful reference can be made in this regard to the judgment in the case of Lachhman P.Udhani and others Vs Redington (India) Ltd., rep. By Mr.V.S.N.Muthy, Senior Executive – Accounts, SPL, Guindy House, No.95, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 32 reported in 2006 (4) CTC 43 and in the case of Anita Malhotra Vs Apparel Export Promotion Council and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 520.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 Crl.OP.No.360 of 2017
8. In the present case Form-32 has been issued by the Registrar of Companies and it has also been duly certified. It shows that the petitioner was not holding the post of Director at the time when the cheque was issued. In view of the same, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of Court and it requires the interference of this Court.
9. In view of the above discussion, the proceedings in C.C.No.7083 of 2014 on the file of Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai is hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned. This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed and there shall be a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in C.C.No.7083 of 2014 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
27.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
speaking order/non-speaking order
dpq
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 Crl.OP.No.360 of 2017
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
dpq
To
1. The Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai Crl.O.P.No.360 of 2017 and Crl.MP.Nos.239 & 240 of 2017 27.01.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/