Madras High Court
Mrs.N.Praveena vs / on 22 September, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22.09.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
1.Mrs.N.Praveena
2.B.Somasekhar .. Petitioners
/versus/
M.Suresh Babu .. Respondent
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for records and quash the criminal proceedings in
S.T.C.No.109 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track at
Hosur.
For Petitioners :Mr.M.P.Saravanan
For Respondent :Mr.K.Krishna
-----
Page No.1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
ORDER
The case to quash the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that these petitioners, who are arrayed as accused 2 and 3 are nothing to do with the proprietary by name M/s R.V. Information Technologies owned by B.Vidyaranya, the first accused alleging that since the relatives of the Vidyaranya have been falsely implicated as co-accused in this case, as if they are running a Firm M/s R.V.Information Technologies System in Hosur.
2. A short point involved in this case is that whether the third parties though related to the signatory of the cheque can be roped in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Based on the cheque drawn by the account maintained by the proprietary concern and signed by the proprietary, this issue has already been settled by the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court (i) Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M.Khan and others reported in [AIR Page No.2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019 2011 SC 1588]; (ii) Nagarajan v. K.Murugesan reported in [2017 SCC online Mad 14476]; (iii) P.V.Selvaraj v. Thirupura Chits Private Limited reported in [2020 SCC Online Mad 8596]; (iv) N.Backiya Lakshmi v. Palanivel reported in [2017 SCC Online Mad 24066] and (V)Rahul Sudhakar Anantwar v. Shivakumar Kanhiyalal Shrivastav reported in [(2019)10 SCC 203] that the principle of vicariously liable has found in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the offence committed by the Company cannot be applied to the proprietary firm since the proprietary firm is not a jurisdictional body unlike company. Therefore, the case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the cheque issued by a Firm, the signatory of the cheque alone can be held liable for prosecution or if it is a partnership firm, the other partners should have knowledge and participated in the affairs of the partnership firm and be roped him as an accused.
Page No.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019
3. This case is concerned, though the complainant claims that these two petitioners are joint partners of the firm M/s R.V. Information Technologies System along with Vidhyaranya, the signatory of the cheque. When the statutory notice was issued to them, the petitioners have informed the defacto complainant in their reply notice dated 27.04.2019 that the said R.V.Information Technologies System is exclusively run by Vidyaranya and these petitioners are no way connected with the said firm and hence, offences under Sections 138 and 141of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not apply. Infact, in the said reply notice, they have also deserved their right to file defamatory suit against the complainant for causing vexatious notice.
4. From the facts as found in the notice and the reply notice as well as the online certificate of registration produced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is clear that R.V.Information Technologies is a proprietary concern run by Vidhyaranya. Either the first petitioner Page No.4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019 N.Praveena, W/o Vidyaranya or the second petitioner B.Somasekhar, brother of Vidyaranya have any role in the partnership firm. Even in the complaint, inspite of the reply notice, the complainant has arrayed these two petitioners as accused 2 and 3. While arrayed them as accused atleast, the complainant should have stated in his complaint how these two petitioners are involved in the management of the proprietary concern or whether they had knowledge of issuance of these cheques without sufficient fund in the account. Unfortunately, nothing is whisper about the role of these petitioners in the said firm. For the said reasons, this Court finds that the complaint against these two petitioners are not sustainable.
5. Even after being brought to the notice that they have been no way concerned with the firm issued the cheques, the complaint filed against them clearly indicating the malicious intention of the defacto complainant. The complaint is connected with three cheques one for Rs.72,80,000/- and other two cheques for Rs.70,00,000/- each, totally Rs.2,12,80,000/- Since Page No.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019 the amount is so huge, by arraying these two petitioners, the malicious intention of extracting the money is made clear and therefore, the complaint against these two petitioners is quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.09.2022 Index:yes/no speaking order/non speaking order ari To The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Hosur. Page No.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari Crl.O.P.No.14679 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7186 of 2019 22.09.2022 Page No.7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis