S.Rathi v. K.Manoharan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.08.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH and Crl.M.P.Nos.13476 & 13477 of 2022 S.Rathi W/o.T.C.Sivakumar Partner of M/s.Abirame Retreads, Door No.L-19-A/136, Kootapalli Colony, Kootapalli Village and Post, Tiruchengodu, Namakkal District - 637 214.

... Petitioner/A-3 vs.

K.Manoharan ... Respondent/complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the case in STC No.7074 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhasarathan For Respondent : No appearance 1/5

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.7074 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Salem insofar as the petitioner (A3) is concerned.

2. The respondent has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. as against three accused persons. The complaint reveals that the second accused had borrowed money from the respondent and he had executed a promissory note. That apart, he had also issued a cheque in favour of the respondent. This cheque was presented for collection and it was dishonoured with an endorsement 'Account Closed'. The petitioner has been roped in this case on the ground that she is the partner of the Firm M/s.Abirame Retreads.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

4. The private notice that was sent to the respondent has been served and the proof of service has also been filed which shows that the notice has been delivered to the respondent. There is no representation on the side of the respondent either in person or through counsel. 2/5

5. On carefully going through the complaint, it is seen that there are absolutely no allegations against the petitioner (A3). The entire transaction had taken place between A2 and the respondent. The petitioner has been attempted to be roped in as an accused only on the ground that the cheque was issued in the name of the partnership Firm by A2 and that the petitioner is also a partner in the Firm. If that is taken to be true, the complaint has to necessarily contain the averments satisfying requirements of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The same is completely absent in this case. The complaint is also silent with regard to the role played by the petitioner (A3) in the transaction.

6. In the light of the above discussion, the continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner (A3) will amount to an abuse of process of Court, which requires interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. In the light of the above discussion, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.7074 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Salem 3/5

is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner (A3) is concerned. The Court below is directed to proceed further with the complaint and dispose of S.T.C.No.7074 of 2019 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order rsi To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.

4/5

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rsi and Crl.M.P.Nos.13476 & 13477 of 2022 02.08.2023 5/5