Greenocare Engineering Private Limited, v. Metecno India Private Limited,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.06.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
1. M/s.Greenocare Engineering Private Limited, Factory No.124/A2, Sirunallur Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpet - 603 309.
2. Venkatraman Kannan Managing Director, Greenocare Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Factory No.124/2, Sirunallur Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpet - 603309.
Now residing at Flat 3A, Ramaniyam Raja, New No.35, Venkatarathinam Nagar Main Road, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
3. Renuka Kannan Renuka Devi Kannan Director, Greenocare Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Factory No.124/A2, Sirunallur Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpet- 603 309 Now residing at J303, Indraprasth-5, Prahlad Nagar, Ahmadabad City, Gujarat- 380 015.
...Petitioners in both the OPs
1/6
Vs.
M/s.Metecno India Private Limited, Represented by its Senior Manager, Finance Mr.S.Sekar, Having Office at II Floor, Florida Towers, 138/30, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai - 600 029.
Having its factory at E-11, Sipcot Industrial Area, NH-4, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepruam District. ...Respondent in both the OPs Prayer in both the Petitions : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to quash the complaint lodged by the respondent in S.T.C.Nos.474 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, and S.T.C.No.2683 of 2024 on the file ofht eIV Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-1, respectively, for the offence under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. For Petitioners : Mr.T.P.Savitha - in both the OPs For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Ramesh - in both the OPs ****** 2/6
COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the cases in S.T.C.No.474 of 2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur and S.T.C.No.2683 of 2024 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Fas Track Court, George Town, Chennai - 1. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent is arising out of a contractual liability, for which the respondent has to approach the Commercial Court and they cannot initiated proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act. The respondent provided substandard materials and for a single invoice, the respondent filed the two different complaints. Further more, the petitioners 2 and 3 have not participated in the day to day affairs of the Company. Therefore the cases against the petitioners have to be quashed. 3/6
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, there are amounts due from the petitioners, for which they have issued cheques and when the same were presented for encashment, both the cheqes were returned. Therefore respondent sent notices and the petitioners also acknowledged the same, but they neither paid the amount nor sent any reply. Therefore present complaints were filed and there is no reason to quash the cases.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
A perusal of the complaints would reveal that there are averments made against the petitioners that they participated in the day to day affairs of Company. Further the grounds taken by the petitioners are not sufficient to quash the cases in S.T.C.Nos.474 of 2024 and 2683 of 2024 pending against the petitioners. This Court does not find any reason to 4/6
quash the cases as sought for by the petitioners. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all their defence before the trial Court. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.06.2025 cgi Speaking /Non-speaking order To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.
2. IV Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-1.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
5/6
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
cgi 18.06.2025 6/6