RAMAN Vs. KRISHNA PHARMACEUTICAL DISTRIBUTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. Nos. 8223, 8224 and 8225 of 1992 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras has filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same.

(2.) SHORT facts are : In C. C. No. 8223 of 1992, the respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act (which I shall hereinafter refer to as the Act ). The allegations in it are briefly as follows: the Complainant is the managing partner of M/s Sri Krishna Pharmaceutical distributors. The accused A. Raman is the proprietor of M/s Sri Janaki pharmacy. The Complainant delivered some goods to the accused, as per the orders placed by the accused. As part-payment thereof, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 1,524. 12 dated 12. 9. 1992. It was presented for encashment. It was returned with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". The complainant issued a statutory notice on 24. 9. 1992 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Even after the receipt of the notice, the accused had not paid the said sum. Hence, the complaint. In C. C. No. 8224 of 1992, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner on similar allegations with regard to the cheque dated 11. 9. 1992, for Rs. 1175. 45. In C. C. No. 8225 of 1992, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of the Act on similar allegations with regard to the cheque dated 2. 8. 1992 for rs. 3,703. 38.

(3.) MR. Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner for Mr. G. M. Syed Fazhruddin, would submit that in these complaints, the petitioner has been described as "sri Janaki Pharmacy" represented by proprietor A. Raman, 299, ist Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Madras-24 and that the complaints can be laid only as against A. Raman who is proprietor of Sri Janaki pharmacy and not against Sri Janaki Pharmacy. He would add that proprietary concern is not the legal entity, apart from the proprietor and that these complaints are not filed against any legal entity and as such they are liable to be quashed.