G RUKKUMANI Vs. K RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Original Petition is to call for records in C. C.No.109 of 2000 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No. I Erode and quash the same.

(2.) The respondent herein preferred a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judical Magistrate No.1 Erode, alleging that the petitioner herein and her son had committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the respondent, the petitioner is the proprietrix of Sri Lakshmi Agencies and her son Poondevan is the mandate holder, who happened to be the authorized signatory of the petitioner. On 15-10-1999 Poondevan borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent-complainant on behhalf of Sri Lakshmi Agencies, the concern run the petitioner herein and agreed to repay the sum with an interest at 24% p.a. within a period of 2-1/2 months. He gave a post dated cheque dated 31-12-1999 for Rs.5,25,000/- When the cheque was presented in the bank on 31-12-1999, it was returned with a memo endorsed insufficient funds on the same date. The respondent/complainant issued legal notice on 3-1-2000 to the petitioner and her son. The petitioner received the notice on 4-1-2000. Her son received the notice on 19-1-2000. The petitioner sent a reply on 7-1-2000 denying the liablility. Her son has not sent any reply. Since no amount was forthcoming after expiry of the statutory period of fifteen days after receipt of the notice by the petitioner and her son, the respondent herein preferred the complaint. Now, the petitioner who happens to be the first accused has come forward with the instant Criminal Original Petition to quash the proceedings contending that she is not a signatory to the cheque and, therefore, she has not committed any offence and consequently, the proceeding against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is illegal and should be quashed.

(3.) Heard both the sides. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the proprietrix of the 'Sri Lakshmi Agencies' and the second accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate is her son. It is also not in dispute that her son is the mandate-holder and the authorized signatory. The respondent had pleaded so in the complaint and the petitioner had also not disputed these facts. In fact, in her reply dated 7-1-2000, the petitioner had admitted that her son is the authorized signatory.