Dismissed

Vijayakumar Mathangi v. M/S.D.S.a.Motors

Madras HC25 Oct 2021CRL OP/752/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It held that the issue of whether the petitioner was in-charge of the company is a question of fact for the trial court and not a ground for quashing.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order to comply under Section 138 of N.I. Act was dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Vijayakumar Mathangi Vs M/S.D.S.a.Motors — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.752 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.490 of 2019

¶6

Vijayakumar Mathangi ...Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.D.S.A.Motors rep.by its Managing Partner D.S.Aqbal, M/A-53 years, Office at 18/4K & 171 D1F, Krishnagiri Main Road, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. ...Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.6 of 2017 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.C.Prabhakaran

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.6 of 2017 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not in-charge of the affairs of the company at the time when the cheque was issued and hence, the complainant has not satisfied the requirements of Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments (N.I.) Act. Further, he drew the attention of this Court to the averments made in the complaint that the petitioner was the erstwhile Managing Director of the Company. He further contended that the petitioner is not the person who issued a cheque and hence, no criminal action can be initiated against him for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

¶17

petitioner was a person in-charge of affairs of the company and he would very much liable to face the prosecution.

¶18

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner

¶19

is not making any bald allegation but he has produced some fundamental facts to file a case under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The fact whether the petitioner was in-charge of the company at the time when the cheque was issued is a question of fact, which can be decided only before the trial Court by producing relevant materials to prove the same. The said point can at the best the defence of the petitioner but cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.

¶20

Hence, this petition stands dismissed. Consequently,

¶21

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

Pns

¶27

To:

¶28

The Learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Dharmapuri.

¶29

Do Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.S.N.Arunkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.55495 +1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.54502

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.752 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.490 of 2019

¶32

RLD(CO) RGA(22/11/2021)

¶33

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

Vijayakumar Mathangi v. M/S.D.S.a.Motors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar Mathangi v. M/S.D.S.a.Motors

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.Thangavelu Vs the State Rep. by

Selvakumar Vs State Rep by

T. Selvamani Vs H. Abdul Khader

R.Maheswari Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

R.Hema Vs the State Rep by Its

Lakshmi Prabha Vs the State Rep by Its