P SNEHALATHA Vs. M SRIRAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2007 to C.C.No.5 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Walajahpet and quash the same. In all the aforesaid four petitions, the petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated against him for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In all the cases, petitioner is the third accused and the first respondent is the complainant. The complainant informs that in the course of his business he has supplied cow wet blue hides to the first accused Company by name M/s.Techno Associates represented by the second and third accused who are the partners. The said cases have came to be filed on issue of cheques on behalf of the first accused by the second accused towards meeting the first accused liability in respect of supply of cow wet hides made to it by the complainant. Upon dishonour of cheques on presentation, the complainant has followed the procedure envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and preferred the complaints.

(2.) Heard Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The third respondent has been given up by the petitioner. The first and the second respondents i.e., Complainant and the first accused firm have been served for but none appeared on their behalf. The very reading of the complaints makes clear that on the knowledge of the complainant, it is the second accused who is '' the active managing partner'' who is in ''active in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business'' of the first accused.

(3.) There is no averment in the complaint that this petitioner was in-charge of and responsible to the first accused partnership firm in the conduct of his business at the time of commission of offence. When such necessary averment is not contained in the complaint and the very stand of the complainant is that, it is the second accused who is the ''active managing partner'' and who is the ''active in-charge of the responsible for the conduct of the business'' of the first accused, the complaint cases as against this petitioner necessarily would fail. For the aforesaid reasons these criminal original petitions are allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2007, C.C.No.3 of 2007, C.C.No.4 of 2007 and C.C.No.5 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Walajahpet shall stand quashed in so far as this petitioner is concerned. C.T.SELVAM, J. ssp