Madras High Court
Mrs.M.Rathinamani vs M/S.Sharp Processing on 11 June, 2019
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.8885 of 2013 and
Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2013
Mrs.M.Rathinamani,
W/o.R.Muthusamy,
Partner of M/s.Falcon Impex,
18, Chitrakar Nagar,
Velliyankadu East,
Thennamplalayam,
Tirupur. ... Petitioner/A3
Versus
1.M/s.Sharp Processing,
Rep. by its P.A.Holder,
C.Sasikumar,
S/o.Chinna Thambi,
S.F.No.402/1A, Saralai Thottam,
Veerapandi,
Tirupur.
2.M/s.Falcon Impex,
Rep. by its Partner R.Muthusamy,
S.F.No.712, E.B.Nagar,
60 Ft. Road, Velliyankadu,
Tirupur – 641 603.
3.Mr.R.Muthusamy,
S/o.Ramasamy,
Partner of M/s.Falcon Impex,
D.No.18, Chitrakarar Nagar,
Velliyankadu, Thennampalayam,
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Tiruppur – 641 603.
4.Mr.A.Muthukumar,
S/o.Arunachalam,
Partner of M/s.Falcon Impex,
No.5, Elango Lay out,
Kankayam Cross Road,
Tiruppur. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for records in S.T.C.No.263 of 2012 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur and quash the same.
For Petitioners : M/s.R.Rajarajan
For Respondent : No appearance
******
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.263 of 2012, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirupur.
2.A private complaint came to be filed by the 1st respondent/complainant against the petitioner/A3 and four others in S.T.C.No.263 of 2012, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur http://www.judis.nic.in 3 for the offence under Section 138, 139 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner/A3 is one of the partner in M/s.Falcon Impex, which is engaged in the business of hosiery garments and the 2nd respondent is a partnership firm viz., M/s.Sharp Processing, carrying on the business of bleaching and dyeing of Cloth and Hosiery Garments. Both the companies had business relationship and they were having credit dealings for the month of April to July-2010, towards the job work dying of hosiery cloths. In discharge of said liability, a cheque bearing No.069665, dated 22.07.2010, for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) was issued by the accused drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Tirupur Branch. On 07.09.2010, the said cheque was presented by the 1 st respondent for collection, which was returned for the reason that “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, notice was sent to the petitioner/A3 and other accused. Though, the notice received by the accused, they neither replied to the same nor made the payment. Hence, the 1st respondent filed a complaint against the accused. Against which the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/A3.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner/A3 is only a sleeping partner in M/s.Falcon Impex/A1 and she had http://www.judis.nic.in 4 not taken any active participation in the business or in the day to day affairs of the 1st accused company. He further submitted that the petitioner is not the signatory to the cheque and the petitioner being a wife of 3 rd respondent/A2, had been made as an accused by the 1 st respondent in this case. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no specific averments in the complaint to rope the petitioner/A3 in taking aid of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4.In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Versus Neeta Bhalla and another reported in 2007 (2) CTC 86.
5.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, this Court finds that there no specific averments to rope the petitioner in the aid of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not the signatory to the cheque and she is only a sleeping partner and she did not take part in the day to day affairs of the company. Under such circumstances, the petitioner/A3 cannot be vicariously held liable.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6.In view of the same, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.263 of 2012 against the petitioner/A3 alone, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirupur is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.06.2019 Speaking Order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 CRL.O.P.No.8885 of 2013 11.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in