Dismissed

N.Sadasivam v. M/S.Kolli Subba Reddy HUF

Madras HC6 Nov 2023CRL OP/6959/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a quashing petition challenging criminal proceedings for cheque bounce. The court held that the petitioner was specifically implicated in the loan transaction and issued notice, and therefore, the complaint attracted offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found no grounds for quashing and remitted the issue to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

N.Sadasivam Vs M/S.Kolli Subba Reddy HUF — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6959 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.6959 of 2021 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.4604 of 2021

N.Sadasivam

... Petitioner

-Vs-

M/s Kolli Subba Reddy HUF, represented by its Kartha Kolli Subba Reddy

¶12

M/s. S R R Finance, (Regn.No.1830/2012), represented by its Managing Partner, No.3, 4^th Street, PTC Colony, Raja Kilpakkam, Chennai-600 073.

¶13

C.Rangaraj ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the C.C.No.3296 of 2018 on the file of the III Fast Track Court, at Saidapet, Chennai, against the petitioner/3^rd accused.

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.R.Ganesh Ram

¶16

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

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.6959 of 2021

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the C.C.No.3296 of 2018 on the file of the III Fast Track Court, at Saidapet, Chennai.

¶21

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

¶22

The first respondent lodged a complaint for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 herein. The crux of the complaint is that the first accused is a registered Partnership Firm bearing Registration No.1830/2012. The second and third accused are partners of the first accused. The second and third accused, on behalf of the first accused, had approached the first respondent for loan. On 18.12.2014, the first respondent had lent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as loan. The accused also had executed promissory note dated 18.12.2014 and issued pro-note. On 27.04.2015, further sum of Rs.7,50,000/was borrowed by them, for which also they had executed a promissory note in favour of the first respondent. Once again, on 05.05.2015, a sum of

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.6959 of 2021

¶26

Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- were borrowed by them and pro-notes were

¶27

executed. In total, they had borrowed a sum of Rs.37,50,000/- and they had also repaid a sum of Rs.2,51,500/-, which includes the amount of Rs.50,000/repaid on 01.12.2016 and it was appropriated towards the 1 st loan amount; a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- had been repaid on various dates and it was appropriated towards the 2 nd loan amount; a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- had been repaid on various dates and it was appropriated towards the 3 rd loan amount and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been repaid on various dates and it was appropriated towards the 4 th loan amount. For the remaining amount, the second accused had handed over cheques bearing Nos.070043, 070044 and 070045. The cheques were presented for collection on 15.10.2017 and all the cheques were bounced on 17.10.2017 for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. After causing statutory notice, the defacto complainant lodged complaint.

¶28

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A3. The petitioner is neither a partner nor a signatory to the cheque. The petitioner is a Singapore resident and he is permanently residing at Singapore. The petitioner, being the brother of the second accused, had been falsely implicated as an accused. The entire allegations are bald and vague and

¶29

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

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.6959 of 2021

¶32

no specific allegation is made out as against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶33

5. A perusal of the complaint revealed that the first respondent categorically stated that the first accused is a Partnership Firm and it is represented by its Kartha namely, the second accused. It is a registered firm bearing Registration No.1830/2012. The second and third accused are the partners cum brothers. They directly approached the first respondent for loan. As stated supra, on so many occasions, they had borrowed a total sum of Rs.37,50,000/-. In order to repay remaining amount, they issued cheques and all the cheques were presented for collection. However, all the cheques were returned dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. In fact, the first respondent caused notice to the petitioner and the same was returned with an

¶34

endorsement “Intimation Delivered”. It amounts to valid service of notice. However, the petitioner did not reply.

¶35

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that the petitioner is not a partner and he is a Singapore citizen, he did not even produce an iota of evidence to show that he is not a partner or a Singapore

¶36

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

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.6959 of 2021

¶39

citizen. The first respondent categorically stated the specific overtact of the

¶40

petitioner and the involvement of the petitioner while borrowing loan. The first respondent also mentioned the document bearing Registration No.1830/2012 to prove that the first accused is a Partnership Firm associated with two partners viz., the second and third accused. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only before the Trial Court during the Trial by letting in evidence.

¶41

7. As stated supra, there are specific overtact to the attract the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3296 of 2018 on the file of the III Fast Track Court, at Saidapet, Chennai.

¶42

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

06.11.2023

¶44

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn

¶45

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

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.6959 of 2021

¶48

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶49

¶50

¶51

The III Fast Track Court, at Saidapet, Chennai.

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.6959 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.4604 of 2021

¶53

06.11.2023

¶54

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

¶55

Page 6 of 6

N.Sadasivam v. M/S.Kolli Subba Reddy HUF

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sadasivam v. M/S.Kolli Subba Reddy HUF

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

M/S.Inox Wind Limited Vs Surface Transport Carriers of India

Vijay Anand Vs State by

Rajaram Vs State Rep.by

Pramod Kumar Vs Additional Superintendent of Police

C.Arul Kumar Vs the State Rep by Its

M.Sumathi Vs R.Jawahar