Allowed

M. Prasath v. v. Chandrasekaran

Madras HC7 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/14895/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents. The court held that the cheque was issued solely by the husband and ordered the quashment of the case against him due to his death, while also questioning the wife's vicarious liability.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the prosecution against Pusparani; declared the remaining prosecution against M. Prasath to abate due to his death.

M. Prasath Vs v. Chandrasekaran — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14895 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 & Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3606 of 2017

¶6

M.Prasath

¶7

Pusparani

¶8

... Petitioners/A1 & A2 -vs-

¶9

V.Chandrasekaran ...Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to in S.T.C.No.187 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Chelladurai

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan,

¶13

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ***** O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed, seeking to quash the case in S.T.C.No.187 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

¶16

It is the case of Chandrasekaran / Complainant that Prasath and Pusparani borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.06.2011 as hand loan and in discharge of the said liability, Prasath gave a cheque bearing No.130489 dated 06.07.2011 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank for Rs.1,00,000/-, which, when presented by Chandrasekaran, was returned unpaid. Chandrasekaran issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of N.I.Act and thereafter, launched the prosecution in STC No.187 of 2012 before learned Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti against Prasath and Pusparani for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. On a reading of the complaint, it is seen that the cheque has been issued by Prasath and not from any joint account of Prasath and Pusparani. A copy of the cheque has been annexed in

¶18

¶19

the typeset of papers, which clearly shows that the cheque has been signed by Prasath only and just because, Pusparani is the wife of Prasath, she cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 138 of N.I.Act.

¶20

It is further seen that this Court had earlier directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.25,000/- at the time of admission on 26.08.2014. It is represented that Prasath has died on 11.03.2017. In view of the above, the entire prosecution against Prasath abates and the prosecution as against Pusparani is hereby quashed. V.Chandrasekaran will be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.25,000/- that has been deposited by the accused.

¶21

This petition is allowed on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

To:

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti.

¶28

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶29

¶30

RL/3C/2P/KP/SAR1/15.6.2017

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14895 of 2014 07.06.2017

¶32

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

M. Prasath v. v. Chandrasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Prasath v. v. Chandrasekaran

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

A.Chelladurai Vs the Secretary to Governmant

K.Ayanraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.Nagarajan, Vs the State Rep. by

A.Jiyavudeen Vs the Insepector of Police

Bhuvanendran, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Palanichamy Vs the Inspector of Police