Allowed

Dr.Zackria Sait v. M/S.Ziss Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC16 Feb 2015CRL OP/32651/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras quashed a private complaint filed against a Managing Director under Section 138 NI Act. Applying the Aneeta Hada precedent, the court held that since the cheque was issued by the company, the company itself and directors in charge must be impleaded as accused alongside the Managing Director. Absence of the company makes the complaint non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed; the private complaint in C.C.No.160/2013 is quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Dr.Zackria Sait Vs M/S.Ziss Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.S.Ramanathan

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.32651 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶6

Dr.Zackria Sait Managing Director, M/s Presidency Kid Leather Limited EVP Padma Avenue, Vellancheri Village Guduvancheri – 603 203

¶7

.. Petitioner/Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M/s Ziss Enterprises Pvt., Ltd., rep. By its Director, G.Sakthi Vinod Rajan

¶10

through his Power of attorney S.Suriyakumar No.226, Kilpauk Garden Road, Om Sakthi Plaza, 4^th floor, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010 ..Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.160/2013 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate II (Fast Track Court-I) Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as against the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Zaffarullah Khan For Respondent : M/s.K.V.Muthuvisakan S.Thambi

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner is said to be the accused in C.C.No.160/2013 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate II (Fast Track Court-I) Egmore, Chennai and has filed this petition to quash the private complaint filed by the respondent herein, which is initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in C.C.No.160 of 2013 that the cheque was issued by M/s Presidency Kid Leather Limited represented by its Managing Director and therefore, the offence has been committed by the said Company and without impleading the Company, the Managing Director, who issued the cheque on behalf of the company has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arrayed as an accused and therefore, the complaint filed by the

¶16

respondent herein in C.C.No.160 of 2014 is not maintainable on the basis of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 661 (Aneeta Hada Vs.Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd).

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/Complainant that though the cheque was issued by the company, it is the Managing Director, who issued the cheque on behalf of the company and therefore, even in the absence of the Company, the Managing Director is responsible and therefore, the complaint filed against the Managing Director is maintainable.

¶18

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. As per Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 661 (Aneeta Hada Vs.Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd), when the cheque has been issued by the Company, it is the company, who has to be arrayed as an accused along with the Managing Director and other Directors of the Company, who are incharge of the day to-day affairs of the company.

¶19

5.Admittedly, the cheque was issued by the company, but the complaint was filed against the Managing Director and notice was issued only to the Managing Director and not to the company. Hence as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated supra, the complaint is not maintainable.

¶20

6.In the light of the above facts, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the complaint in C.C.No.160 of 2013 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate – II, (Fast Track CourtI, Egmore, Chennai) is quashed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

ssd

¶26

¶27

1.The Metropolitan Magistrate II (Fast Track Court-I) Egmore, Chennai

¶28

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

¶29

2 The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.K.V.Muthuvisakan, Advocate SR.NO.8262

¶31

+1 CC to Mr.Zaffarullah Khan, Advocate SR.NO.8725

¶32

CRL.O.P.No.32651 of 2013 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
SCD (CO)
DRL :21/02/2015

¶33

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

Dr.Zackria Sait v. M/S.Ziss Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Zackria Sait v. M/S.Ziss Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S.Vijay Vs State Rep by

M.Abubucker Sidiq (54/15) Vs the Commissioner of Police

V.Bhuvaneshwaran M/a 32 Yrs Vs State Rep by

Thirumalai Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Rama Krishnan Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Sakthivel Vs the Inspector of Police