Allowed

Shankar Nathan v. M/S.Redington (India) Ltd.

Madras HC21 Jun 2016CRL OP/9745/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the criminal prosecution against the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act, holding that he could not be held vicariously liable as he had resigned from the company well before the disputed cheque was issued. The trial is directed to proceed with other accused.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution against the petitioner quashed; trial to proceed with other accused on bail.

Shankar Nathan Vs M/S.Redington (India) Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.06.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.9745 of 2016 & Crl.M.P. Nos.5055 & 5056 of 2016

¶6

Shankar Nathan Petitioner/4th accused

¶7

vs.

¶8

Redington (India) Limited represented by M. Sundarrajan Senior Legal Executive SPL Guindy House 95, Mount Road Guindy, Chennai 600 032

¶9

Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C. No.5320 of 2015 pending on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

¶11

For petitioner Mr. Suchit Anant Palande

¶12

For respondent Mr.V.T.Narendiran

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records relating to C.C. No.5320 of 2015, pending on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

¶15

2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

¶16

3 Redington India Limited filed a prosecution in Crime No.5320 of 2015 before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet against 6 accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity “the Act”) challenging which Shankar Nathan (A4) is before this Court for quashing the prosecution on the ground that he had resigned from Indus Mobile Distribution Private Ltd. (A1) before the cheque in question was issued.

¶17

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

¶18

4 It is the case of Redington India Ltd. that Indus Mobile Distribution Private Ltd. (A1) has to pay Rs.5,87,48,172/- towards which they issued a cheque on 20.07.2015, which, when presented, was dishonoured. Redington India Ltd. issued a statutory notice dated 30.07.2015, despite which, the accused did not make payment and therefore, the present complaint has been filed arraying Indus Mobile Distribution Private Ltd. and its Directors, including Shankar Nathan, as accused.

¶19

5 Heard Mr. Suchit Anant Palande, learned counsel for Shankar Nathan and Mr. V.T. Narendiran, learned counsel for Redington India Ltd.

¶20

6 As stated above, Shankar Nathan (A4) had resigned from Indus Mobile Distribution Private Ltd. and the cheque in question was issued only on 20.07.2015, on which date, he was not a Director in the company. In support of this contention, a copy of Form 12 (which was earlier called as Form 32) has been filed as per which Shankar Nathan has resigned from the company on 05.12.2013, whereas, the said form itself has been presented to the Registrar of Companies only in the year 2014.

¶21

above position.

¶22

8 Be that as it may, in view of the fact that Shankar Nathan has resigned much earlier to the cheque in question was issued, he cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Act.

¶23

9 In the result, the prosecution in C.C. No.5320 of 2015 against Shankar Nathan alone is quashed and this petition is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and release the other accused on bail under Section 436 Cr.P.C. on getting a bond for Rs.10,000/- each with 2 sureties on the date of their appearance.

¶24

10 It may be necessary to state here that unless the accused are released on bail, there cannot be suspension of sentence by the Trial Court under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

-s/d-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CSVI)

¶27

True Copy

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

1 The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court Saidapet Chennai

¶32

2 -do- The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 3 The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶33

+2 ccs to Mr.Suchit Anant Palande Advocate vide sr.34263 +1 cc to Mr.V.T.Narendiran Advocate sr.34283 Crl.O.P. No.9745 of 2016

¶34

gj(co) aa11/07/2016

¶35

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

Shankar Nathan v. M/S.Redington (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Nathan v. M/S.Redington (India) Ltd.

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

S.Radha Vs State Rep. by

B.Indra Vs State Rep by

Manimegalai Vs the State Rep by Its

B.Manoharan Vs State Rep. by

K.Selvam Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Sai Venkata Prasad Vs State Rep by