The High Court dismissed Criminal Original Petitions seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that disputes regarding whether accused were Directors or involved in day-to-day affairs are questions of fact for the trial court under Section 142.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.10.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Crl.O.P.Nos.16356 and 16357 of 2014
P.Seethalakshmi ...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16356 of 2014 (A3)
Mrs.R.Dhanalakshmi
...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16357 of 2014 (A5)
Vs. M/s.Weizmann Forex Ltd., rep.by its Senior Manager, Mr.B.Suresh Kumar ...Respondent in both the petitions
(Complainant)
Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the complaint filed by the respondent herein in C.C.No.7246 of 2014 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, filed under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Nandagopai For Respondent : No appearance
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16356 of 2014 is the third accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16357 of 2014 is the fifth accused in C.C.No.7246 of 2014, on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The respondent in both the petitions is the complainant in the case. The said case has been instituted on a private complaint alleging that the petitioners and three others have committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate has taken cognizance and has issued summons. The petitioners have now come up with these petitions seeking to quash the said proceedings so far as the petitioners are concerned.
of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These disputed facts would not be resolved by this Court in a proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I hold that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
msk
To
1. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai
2. -Do- Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai - 8.
Crl.O.P.Nos.16356 and 16357 of 2014
RSY (CO)
PSI (30.10.2014)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Crl.O.Ps challenging prosecution of accused under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act for non-attendance to statutory notice are maintainable before the High Court or require trial.
Whether a Director or someone involved in day-to-day affairs of the company must be prosecuted for cheque dishonour under Section 138.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Seethalakshmi
Mrs.R.Dhanalakshmi
M/s.Weizmann Forex Ltd.
S.Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
