LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-140

SAMATHA NIKILA Vs. K SATHISHKUMAR REDDY

Decided On October 28, 2003
SAMATHA, NIKILA Appellant
V/S
K.SATHISHKUMAR REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.6267 of 2001 pending on the file of the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioners submit that the respondent has filed a complaint against them for the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of a cheque, stated to have been issued by the Managing Partner of M/s. Rohini Builders, who is the first accused; that the petitioners have been impleaded as accused 2 to 4 in the complaint alleging that they are in active participation for the conduct of business of the firm; that they are not the partners of the firm, but they have been impleaded as accused since they are the family members of A1 Banu Prasad Reddy; that there is no piece of documentary evidence shown in the complaint that they are the partners of the firm and in the absence of such averment, there is no necessity to shift the evidence during the trial and such evidence will not help the complainant to prove his case; that even as per statutory notice, the amount was due on January 1997 and the alleged cheque was stated to have been issued on 9.4.2001, and as per the above said fact, the cheque has been issued for a time barred debt. Hence, the complaint cannot be maintained for the offences under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; that the petitioners have been added as accused with mala fide intentions, ulterior motive and to harass the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with the above Criminal Original Petition for the relief extracted supra.

(3.) During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners besides reiterating what has been pleaded in the petition would also cite three judgments from the decided cases respectively reported in: 1.1994-1-L.W.(Crl.) 135 (M.KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. B.S.KESAVAN) 2.2002(2) Crimes 638 (S.N.BANGUR & OTHERS vs. M/S.KLEN & MARSHALLS MFRS. & EXPORTERS PVT.LTD.) 3.2001 (2) Supreme 311 (K.P.G.NAIR VS. M/S.JINDAL MENTHOL INDIA LTD.)