Dismissed

Senthil Tsp M/a 65 Years, v. Reliance Capital Limited

Madras HC29 Nov 2021CRL OP/19102/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chennai High Court dismissed three Criminal Original Petitions seeking quashing of cheque dishonour proceedings, finding the complaints maintainable as the impugned cheque was issued by accused persons. The Court granted bail subject to execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties; Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed consequentially.

Senthil Tsp M/a 65 Years, Vs Reliance Capital Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.O.P.NOS.19102 TO 19104 OF 2017 AND CRL.M.P.NOS.11587 AND 11592 OF 2017

¶6

Senthil TSP ... Petitioner/Accused in all the Petitions

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Reliance Capital Limited, Rep. by its Legal Manager R.Kumaran, No.5, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

¶9

... Respondent/Complainant in all the Petitions

¶10

PRAYER:-

¶11

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.Nos.5140, 1901 and 1070 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad in all Petitions

¶13

For Respondent : No appearance in all Petitions

¶14

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶15

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.5140, 1901 and 1070 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaints filed by the complainant in

¶18

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

¶19

C.C.Nos.5140, 19103 and 1070 of 2017 are not maintainable, since the complaints itself are silent about who is the proprietorship of the concern.

¶20

Court is unable to persuade itself further with such

¶21

submission, for the simple reason that the impugned cheque has been admittedly issued by the first accused and the person who had signed the cheque is the second accused. The petitioner herein is the third accused, who is the father of the second accused. The very complaint itself clearly indicate that both the petitioner/third accused and second accused had borrowed the amount and signed the loan application as co-applicant. In such a view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain these Criminal Original Petitions.

¶22

Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. It is for the petitioner to take all his defence before the trial Court. The accused are directed to appear before the trial Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file an application under Section 436 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On such filing of the application, trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail on the same day on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties. If thereafter, he absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229 A of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

psa/mvs

¶28

¶29

The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate, S.R.No.62735

¶31

CRL.O.P.NOS.19102, 19103 AND 19104 OF 2017

¶32

GPL(CO) PBS/14/12/2021

¶33

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

Senthil Tsp M/a 65 Years, v. Reliance Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthil Tsp M/a 65 Years, v. Reliance Capital 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

T Sournavel, Vs S. Krishnaveni

Venugopal, Aged 32 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Raja, Aged 41 Yrs Vs S.Jayapal

K. Rajagopal, 69 Yrs, Vs Deputy Superintendent of

Vanitha Devi, Vs K.R. Eswaramurthy

Ajit George, 43 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police