Petitioner sought quashing of a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 NI Act, contending the cheque was issued on behalf of Sivaram Builders and not personally. The court found disputed questions of legal liability requiring trial evidence and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.4018 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.No.4018 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos.1980, 1981 & 9392 of 2022
L.N.Iyyapane
... Petitioner
Versus
Muruganantham ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.T.C.No.446 of 2021 on the file of the learned Addl. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Vijayaragavan For Respondent : Mr.R.Natarajan
Page No.1 of 6
ORDER
Crl.O.P.No.4018 of 2022
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.446 of 2021 and he preferred this Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the case in S.T.C. No.446 of 2021 on the file of learned Addl. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal.
2. Heard both sides.
Page No.2 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.4018 of 2022
cheque in question was not issued by him nor he is having any legal liability to the respondent herein. Moreover, the cheque under possession was not issued in the individual name of petitioner, on the other hand, it was issued on behalf of Sivaram Builders. Furthermore, he would also submit that he retired from the said firm in the year of 2018 and the alleged cheque was of the year 2021 said to be issued on behalf of Sivaram Builders. So, the complaint registered against him, as such is erroneous one and it is a defraud claim. Moreover, if at all, the cheque is issued on behalf of the said firm, the alleged partnership firm is also to be added as a party to the proceedings. But in the said complaint, the respondent herein initiated criminal proceedings only against him as a individual capacity. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings as it is a vexatious claim.
Page No.3 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.4018 of 2022
Page No.4 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.4018 of 2022
wherein he denied the legal liability, which needs detailed investigation and evidence. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. If at all, any legal defence is available, the petitioner is entitled to work out the same before the trial court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
03.01.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpp
Page No.5 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.4018 of 2022
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
CRL.O.P.No.4018 of 2022
03.01.2024
Page No.6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cheque complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner individually, despite his claim that the cheque was issued on behalf of Sivaram Builders, should be quashed.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
L.N.Iyyapane
Muruganantham
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
