Dismissed

M.Sumathi v. R.Jawahar

Madras HC6 Nov 2023CRL OP/7412/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed Crl.O.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a cheque dishonour complaint. Noted that the respondent died and disputed petitioner's capacity; trial already commenced. Court held quash petition cannot consider grounds raised and dismissed the plea. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition to quash dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M.Sumathi Vs R.Jawahar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No. 7412 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. 7412 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 4916 & 4917 of 2021

M.Sumathi

.... Petitioner

R.Jawahar .... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to impugned private complaint in C.C.No.577 of 2012 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundaresan

¶13

For Respondent : No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

¶16

impugned private complaint in C.C.No.577 of 2012 pending on the file of

¶17

the Fast Track Court, Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶19

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

¶20

1/4

¶21

Crl.O.P.No. 7412 of 2021

¶22

submit that now the respondent died.

¶23

A perusal of the records reveals that the deceased respondent filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as against the petitioner alleging that the respondent is working under the petitioner and while settling his salary arrears and provident fund, the petitioner issued a cheque to the tune of Rs.5,58,750/-. When the said cheque was presented for collection, the same has been returned with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds”. After causing statutory notice, the respondent filed a complaint.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as an Accountant in M/s.Global Innovators and she is not a proprietor of the said company.

¶25

A perusal of the cheque reveals that M/s.Global

¶26

Innovators is a proprietor concern and the petitioner is only an authorised signatory of M/s.Global Innovators. That apart, already the trial has commenced and the respondent side evidence is over. At this stage, the

¶27

quash petition cannot be considered on the ground raised by the 2/4

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.No. 7412 of 2021

¶30

petitioner. However, the petitioner can very well to raise the grounds before the Trial Court with sufficient evidence.

¶31

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned private complaint in C.C.No.577 of 2012 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

06.11.2023

¶33

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp To

¶34

The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Mayiladuthurai.

¶35

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶36

Lpp

¶37

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

¶38

3/4

¶39

Crl.O.P.No. 7412 of 2021

¶40

Crl.O.P.No. 7412 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 4916 & 4917 of 2021

¶41

06.11.2023

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

M.Sumathi v. R.Jawahar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sumathi v. R.Jawahar

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

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