S K REAL ESTATES Vs. S AHMED MEERAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C.C. No. 5890 of 1997 on the file of V-Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and they pray for quashing the proceedings in the case.

(2.) THE respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioners arraying them as accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the respondent/complainant, the first accused is a concern, represented by its proprietor S. K. Krishnamurthy and the second accused is S. K. Krishnamurthy and they entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant and he paid a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/-. THE transaction did not materialise and hence the first accused concerned and its proprietor gave a cheque in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the cheque got dishonoured on 22-5-1997 with an endorsement "funds insufficient". At the request of second accused, the cheque was represented on 3-6-1997 and 14-6-1997 and on both the occasions, the cheque got dishonoured for the same reason and thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer's notice, dated 25-6-1997, to the accused and it was received by the accused. No payment had been made even thereafter. Hence the complaint is filed.

(3.) IN the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Satish Jayantilal Shah v. Pankaj Mashruwala, reported in 1996 Cri LJ 3099, R. R. Jain, J. held that definition of person under Section 11 of INdian Penal Code and under Section 3(42) of General Clauses Act does not include 'proprietor' and hence a proprietary concern is not a legal entity or juridic person and it can neither initiate any proceedings nor proceedings can be initiated against it.