Allowed

Pushpakumar v. M/S.Icici Bank Limited

Madras HC11 Feb 2021CRL OP/1173/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a cheque bounce case. The court held that since the petitioner was not a director and the complaint failed to allege responsibility, continuing proceedings against her would amount to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C No.794 of 2018 are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

Pushpakumar Vs M/S.Icici Bank Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P No.1173 of 2019

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P No.766 of 2019

¶8

Pushpakumar ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs M/s.ICICI Bank Limited ICICI Bank Towers Rep. by its POA Mr.Moorthy Regional Office at No.24, South Phase Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058 ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.794 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Ambattur, Tiruvallur District and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.T.Muruganantham

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C No.794 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Ambattur.

¶15

2. The respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, even the name of the petitioner has not been properly described and it merely describes as Mrs.Pushpa Kumar. The actual name of the petitioner is V.Deepa Pushpakumar.

¶16

3.The complaint proceeds on the basis that A1 is a partnership firm and it is represented by partners. Whereas, the records furnished from the ROC (Registrar of Companies) shows

¶17

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

¶18

that A1 is a private limited company. It is also seen that the petitioner is not even a director in this company. A bald averment has been made against the petitioner in the complaint and it is not even clear from the complaint as to why the petitioner has been added as an accused. A cheque was issued by A1 and it has been signed by one Pushpakumar. Without there being, any allegations made against the petitioner and without establishing that the petitioner was also incharge and responsible for the day-today-affairs of the company, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will amount of an abuse of process of Court which requires the interference of this Court.

¶19

4. In the result, the proceedings in C.C No.794 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Ambattur, Tiruvallur District, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar uma To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Ambattur, Tiruvallur District, +1cc to Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, Advocate, sr no.8158 Crl.O.P No.1173 of 2019 and Crl.M.P No.766 of 2019 MG(CO) RMP(09/03/2021)

¶20

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

Pushpakumar v. M/S.Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpakumar v. M/S.Icici Bank Limited

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

R.Seralathan Vs State Rep by

K.Thiruvenkadam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kolanchi M. Vs The District Collector

Paulraj Jayalakshmi Vs Nirmala Arunagiri

Rajan @ Italy Rajan @ Soundararajan Vs State Rep.by

Arjunan Vs State Rep by