Dismissed

Karthik Vyas v. Gopalji Agarwar

Madras HC8 Nov 2023CRL OP/5584/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an accused partner in a firm facing charges under Section 138 NI Act, filed an O.P under Section 482 CrPC claiming he operated no bank account and thus lacked knowledge of the offence. The Court dismissed the petition, finding his admission of partnership and failure to reply to statutory notice barred quashing. Participation in trial was permitted only upon proof of costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to participate in trial only after proving payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to District Legal Services Authority, Madras.

Karthik Vyas Vs Gopalji Agarwar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.5584 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 08.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.5584 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P. Nos.17246, 3509 & 3510 of 2023

Mr.Karthik Vyas

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.Mr.Gopalji Agarwal Prop of India Aluminium Trading Co, Rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent, Mr.Ramesh Babu

¶13

2.Mr.Aluminium India, Rep. by its Partner, Mr.Suresh Vyas

¶14

3.Mr.Niranjan Vyas, Partner of M/s.Aluminium India 4.Mr.Suresh Vyas, Partner of M/s.Aluminium India

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C. No.2618 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner is concerned.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohan For Respondent 1 : Mr.Siddharth Bahety

¶18

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

¶19

Page No.1/4

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.5584 of 2023

¶21

ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by one of the accused in

¶22

the private complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The contention of the petitioner herein is that as per the terms of the partnership firm, he is not entitled to operate the bank account of the partnership firm and therefore, having no knowledge about the issuance of cheque and not being a person acting in day to day administration of the business, he cannot be prosecuted.

¶23

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner also rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Shewak Ramani and Ors. Vs. State of Andra Pradesh and Anr., reported in ( 2023 (INSC) 692). This Court initially has granted interim stay of further proceedings, after notice, the complainant has filed a vacate stay petition and the matter is heard today by this Court.

¶24

After hearing the representation made by the learned counsel and perusing the records, this Court finds that the petitioner herein admits that he is one of the partner of the first accused firm which has issued the cheque, duly signed by one of the authorised signatory viz., the second accused. After dishonoring of the cheque, statutory notice has been issued to all the partners including the petitioner herein but the petitioner has not chosen to reply the

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2/4

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.5584 of 2023

¶27

statutory notice putting forth the contention what he has placed before this

¶28

Court in his quash petition.

¶29

Since, he has not replied to the statutory notice, the complainant has bonafidely filed the case including this petitioner being the partner of the firm which has issued the cheque. If the petitioner is not an active partner in the firm and not involved in the day to day affairs of the firm which he has not brought to the notice of the complainant before filing the complaint. Now cannot believe that it is a malicious prosecution to interfere by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶30

5. It is now open to the petitioner to participate in the trial and putforth his contention and contest the case. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Madras. The trial Court on proof of payment of the costs shall permit the petitioner herein to participate in the trial. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

¶31

08.11.2023

¶32

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rkp

¶33

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

¶34

Page No.3/4

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.5584 of 2023

¶36

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶37

rkp

¶38

¶39

1.The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai

¶40

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.5584 of 2023

¶42

and Crl.M.P. Nos.17246, 3509 & 3510 of 2023

¶43

08.11.2023

¶44

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

¶45

Page No.4/4

Karthik Vyas v. Gopalji Agarwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthik Vyas v. Gopalji Agarwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Chand Jain Vs Tamilnadu News Print and Paper Limited

J.D.John Samuel Vs the Commissioner of Police

Immanuel Vasanth Raj Vs Inspector of Police

Prof.Dr.E.Balagurusamy Vs K.P.Anbalagan

Shanmugam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Duraimurugan Vs the Director General of Police