Allowed

Tanuj Manubhai Patel v. Sundar Lakshmi Agencies and Traders Private Limited

Madras HC27 Apr 2023CRL OP/27449/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed criminal petitions to quash a private complaint challenging the recovery of a cheque. The Court held that the complaint failed to adequately allege facts necessary to invoke Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the individual petitioners, rendering their prosecution untenable under that section.

What did the court decide?

The private complaint was quashed against the petitioners; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed; the trial court was directed to expedite the trial for other accused within three months.

Tanuj Manubhai Patel Vs Sundar Lakshmi Agencies and Traders… — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos. 27449 & 27944 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P. Nos. 27449 & 27944 of 2019 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 14604, 14605 & 14882 of 2019

¶6

Tanuj Manubhai Patel ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 27449 of 2019 Archana Tanuj Patel ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 27944 of 2019

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sundar Lakshmi Agencies and Traders Private Limited Reprsented through its Managing Director Mr. R.Raj Kumar S/o. Dr.V.Rajeshwaran B1, Gulmohar Apartments, Door No.35, South Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. ... Respondent

¶9

1/6

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

Crl.O.P.Nos. 27449 & 27944 of 2019

¶12

PRAYER:

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶14

Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in C.C.No.10043 of 2018 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court

¶15

No.III, Metropolitan Magistrate Courts, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Bhadri Narayanan (in both petitions) for Ms. Deepika Murali.

¶17

For Respondent : Mr. R.Venkatajalapathy (in both petitions) for Mr. S.Kadarkarai

¶18

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶19

The petitions are filed to quash the private complaint for the alleged offences under Section 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶20

The petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3, respectively, in the

¶21

complaint. The allegation is that the 1^st accused company had issued a

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.O.P.Nos. 27449 & 27944 of 2019

¶25

cheque for a sum of Rs.29,75,340/- in favour of the respondent in discharge of their liability. The petitioners are shown as Directors in the cause title in the impugned complaint.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is

¶27

no allegation in the complaint to invoke Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The basic averments that the petitioners were incharge of and responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business or that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of the petitioners are absent in the impugned complaint.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the question as to whether the petitioners are incharge of and responsible to the accused company for the conduct of its business is a matter for Trial and prayed for a dismissal of the quash petition.

¶29

This Court finds that there is no allegation in the impugned

¶30

complaint to invoke Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Crl.O.P.Nos. 27449 & 27944 of 2019

¶34

prosecute the petitioners. The only averment in the complaint is that the accused are jointly and severely liable to repay the alleged dues to the respondent. The said allegation does not satisfy the requirement under Section 141 of the Act. Hence, the complaint is liable to be quashed as against the petitioners alone.

¶35

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶36

The Fast Track Court III, Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

¶37

Saidapet, is directed to expedite the Trial in respect of the other accused and complete the same preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

27.04.2023

¶39

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No kan

¶40

4/6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.O.P.Nos. 27449 & 27944 of 2019

¶43

¶44

The Fast Track Court No.III, Metropolitan Magistrate Courts, Saidapet,

¶45

5/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Crl.O.P.Nos. 27449 & 27944 of 2019

¶48

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶49

kan

¶50

Crl.O.P.Nos. 27449 & 27944 of 2019

¶51

27.04.2023

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

6/6

Tanuj Manubhai Patel v. Sundar Lakshmi Agencies and Traders Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanuj Manubhai Patel v. Sundar Lakshmi Agencies and Traders Private 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

D.Victor Paul Vs the State Rep.by

K.S.Rajagopalan Vs State Rep.by

Nagai Thiruvalluvan Vs the State, Represented by

M/S.Venkateswara Hatcheries Pvt.Ltd., Vs T.Rajendran

Senthilbabu Vs State Rep.by

M.S.Mohammed Nazeemudeen Vs State Rep by