A. SUBRAMANIAM Vs. SHABBIR ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein seeks to quash the proceedings pending against him in C.C. Nos. 6157 and 6158 of 2004 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. In such cases, the petitioner has been arrayed as the 2nd accused in respect of offences under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1988. The complaints in the said cases are one alleging that a company by name M/s. Energo Masch Power Engineering & Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. owed the complainant company a sum of Rs. 8,08,903/ -, towards repayment thereof issued seven cheques, three of which were pre sented for collection on 16.04.2004. The same were returned unpaid for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer". The complainant company issued separate notice of demand in respect of each of the cheques calling upon the accused including the petitioner herein to effect payment within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. There was some ambiguity about the manner of service on the 1st accused company, all other accused, who are the Directors thereof were aware of the notice. Hence, complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused on the allegation that he was one of the Directors of the 1st accused company and was in charge of the business thereof.

(2.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had resigned from Directorship of the company on 31.03.2002 and the same has been duly intimated to the Registrar of Companies under Form No. 32. The very date of the cheques giving rise to the complaints were of the year 2004 i.e. much after the retirement of the petitioner as Director of the 1st accused company. Learned counsel submits that the matter has arisen between the same parties. On a similar stand, this Court has been pleased to quash proceedings against the petitioner under orders in Crl.O.P. No. 25749 of 2006 dated 23.12.2008.

(3.) THIS Courts accepts the contention made on behalf of the petitioner and passes like order as in Crl.O.P.25749 of 2006.