Allowed

Mr.Dharmadev Maurya v. Sudhir Kumar Singh

Madras HC17 Jun 2015CRL OP/29898/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed criminal petitions to quash proceedings against the father of the sole signatory. The Court held that under Section 138 NI Act, the father could not be held vicariously liable as the cheques were issued by the proprietorship concern in his son's name. Proceedings against the father were quashed while conviction continued against the sole accused.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.Nos.64 and 65 of 2013 against the petitioner (father) were quashed. Trial to continue against the remaining accused within three months.

Mr.Dharmadev Maurya Vs Sudhir Kumar Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 11.06.2015

¶3

DELIVERED ON : 17.06.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.OP Nos.29898 and 30708 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.O.P.No.29898 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in Crl.O.P.No.30708 of 2013

¶7

Dharmadev Maurya .. Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶8

Proprietor :M/s.Jaya Ambey, Exports Mandate Holder:M/s.B.Hagya Lakshmi Textiles.

¶9

1.Sudhir Kumar Singh, Proprietor:M/s.Pragati Textiles

¶10

2.Sanjay Singh Kushwaha .. Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶11

Proprietor :M/s.Bhagyalakshmi Textiles Mandate Holder :M/s.Jaya Ambey Exports

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to CC. No.65 and 64 of 2013 respectively on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem and quash the proceedings insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein.

¶13

For Petitioner Mr.S.Kalyanaraman For Respondents Mr.R.Nalliyappan [for R1]

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner [A2], seeks to quash the prosecution in C.C.Nos.65 and 64 of 2013 respectively, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .

¶16

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the complainant and the second accused.

¶17

It is the case of the complainant that, Sanjay Singh Kushwaha [A1] is the Proprietor of Bhagya Lakshmi Textiles and it is the mandate holder of M/s Jaya Ambey Exports. The complainant seems to have supplied goods to M/s Bhagya Lakshmi Textiles and M/s Jaya Ambey Exports under 12 invoices in Crl.O.P.No.29898 of 2013 and under 4 invoices in Crl.O.P.No.30708 of 2013, towards which liability, Sanjay Singh Kushwaha [A1] issued four cheques of M/s https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bhagya Lakshmi Textiles in each petition, which is proprietary

¶18

concern. When the eight cheques were presented by the complainant, they were dishonoured, and after issuance of statutory notices under Section 138 of NI Act, the complainant lodged the present complaints against both accused Sanjay Singh Kushwaha [A1] and his father Dharmadev Maurya [A2], which are under challenge before this Court.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/complainant.

¶20

On a perusal of the complaints it is seen that, the impugned cheques were issued by the Proprietorship concern by name Bhagya Lakshmi Textiles owned by Sanjay Singh Kushwaha [A1] and therefore, the second accused cannot be made vicariously liable for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶21

Under such circumstances, these petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.64 and 65 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem against Dharmadev Maurya [A2] are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem shall expeditiously conduct the trial in C.C.Nos.64 and 65 of 2013 as against the other accused and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem.

¶24

2.thro'The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. +1 cc to M/s.R.Nalliyappan, Advocate,SR.28740, 28741 +1 cc to M/s.M.Kalyanaraman, Advocate,sR.29633,29634 ala(co) krd 22/6

¶25

Pre-delivery order in Crl.OP Nos.29898 and 30708 of 2013

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.Dharmadev Maurya v. Sudhir Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Dharmadev Maurya v. Sudhir Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Abdul Rasheed Vs the Inspector of Police

Saradha, Age 45 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Karikalan Vs State Rep. by

Riyazith Farooq Vs M.Kuthbutheen

M/S.Galaxy Amaze Kingdom Ltd., Vs M/S.Steward Capital Pvt.Ltd.

Lakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police