Partly allowed

Chandrika Mohandas v. M/S.Sree Gogulam Chits and

Madras HC10 Aug 2017CRL OP/24469/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed to quash private complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Bench quashed proceedings against the second petitioner as he did not issue the cheque but allowed proceedings against the first petitioner who signed it.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.10778 of 2003 quashed in respect of second petitioner; dismissed in respect of first petitioner.

Chandrika Mohandas Vs M/S.Sree Gogulam Chits and — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.08.2017

¶4

(Orders reserved on 02.08.2017)

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.24469 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
1. Chandrika Mohandas
2. K.A.Mohandas ... Petitioners/Accused
.. Vs ..
M/s. Sree Gogulam Chits and Finance Company
(P) Limited,
Represented by Legal Assistant,
K.Satheesh Kumar,
Sree Gogulam Towers,
No.66, Arcot Road,
Chennai - 600 024. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the private complaint in C.C.No.10778 of 2003 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai, (originally on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet, Chennai) and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondent : Mr.L.Rajasekar

¶10

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The accused in C.C.No.10778 of 2003 on the file of the Fast Track

¶15

Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai, are the petitioners herein.

¶16

The petitioners have filed this criminal original petition under

¶17

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the private complaint in C.C.No.10778

¶18

of 2003 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai, (originally on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet, Chennai).

¶19

The brief facts, which are necessary for determination of the

¶20

case, are as follows:-

¶21

The respondent herein/company has filed a private complaint for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners alleging that the respondent is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act 1956, represented by its Legal Assistant and running a chit and finance and the second petitioner/A.2 is a subscriber of the chit and defaulted in

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

payment of the chit money and the first petitioner/A.1, who is the wife of the second petitioner/A.2 undertook the liability of the second petitioner/A.2 and issued a cheque bearing No.1253547 dated 06.03.2003, for a sum of Rs.96,969/- drawn on M/s.Nedungadi Bank Limited, Guruvayoor Branch, in favour of the respondent/complainant and when the said cheque was presented for collection on 18.03.2003, it was returned unpaid on 24.03.2003 with an endorsement 'accounts closed' and hence, the respondent/complainant had issued a legal notice dated 12.04.2003 to the accused and the said notice was returned undelivered with an endorsement 'no such Kadaparambil House, Mammiyur, Guruvayur and after sending the notice, the above said private complaint has been preferred by the respondent/complainant.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused submitted that the cheque was issued only by the second petitioner/A.2 and there is no allegation in the complaint that the first petitioner/A.1 was in debt and for the discharge of the debt, she issued any cheque to the respondent/complainant. In the absence of any specific allegation that the first petitioner/A.1 was responsible for

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

the issuance of cheque, she cannot be proceeded with under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶29

respondent/complainant has stated that the cheque was issued by the first petitioner/A.1 namely Chandrika Mohandas for the amount due to the complainant company by the second petitioner/A.2 namely Mohandas, who is a subscriber in the complaint company. It is further stated that the cheque issued by the first petitioner herein/A.1 was bounced and hence, criminal prosecution has been launched.

¶30

For the shake of clarity as to who has issued the cheque, this

¶31

Court has directed the learned counsel for the respondent to produce

¶32

the copies of the dishonored cheque and the memo given by the Bank.

¶33

On perusal of the dishonored cheque, it is seen that the cheque drawn on M/s.Nedungadi Bank Limited, Guruvayoor Branch, dated 06.03.2003 for a sum of Rs.96,969/- having Sl.No.1253547 was signed by Chandrika Mohandas, the first petitioner herein/A.1 and the said cheque has been bounced and legal notice has been issued therefor.

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

¶36

Considering the factual position that since the cheque has

¶37

been issued by the first petitioner herein/A.1 namely, Chandrika Mohandas in her individual capacity, the second petitioner herein/A.2 cannot be prosecuted under the provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, to the limited extent, the proceedings in C.C.No.10778 of 2003 is liable to be quashed only in

¶38

respect of the second petitioner/A.2.

¶39

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the

¶40

proceedings in C.C.No.10778 of 2003 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai, is quashed only in respect of the second petitioner/A.2. Insofar as the first petitioner/A.1 is concerned,

¶41

this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the

¶42

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

10.08.2017

¶44

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Jrl

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶46

¶47

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Jrl
To
The Fast Track Court No.III,
Saidapet, Chennai.
Order in
Crl.O.P.No.24469 of 2012

¶48

10.08.2017

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

Chandrika Mohandas v. M/S.Sree Gogulam Chits and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika Mohandas v. M/S.Sree Gogulam Chits and

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

Dharambal Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mr.Ponna Farooque Ahmed Vs M.Fakiha Janna

Alok P.Gupta Vs State by

V.P.Kuppurao Vs State Rep by

B.Pushpa Vs the Inspector of Police

V.P.Kuppu Rao Vs State Rep by