LAWS(MAD)-1994-2-37

INDIRA Vs. KARTHIKEYAN

Decided On February 02, 1994
INDIRA Appellant
V/S
KARTHIKEYAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The third accused in C. C. 158 and 159 of 1993 and C. C. 304 to 309 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ponneri, has filed these petitions under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same.

(2.) SHORT facts are : In C. C. 304/92, the complainant in that case has filed the complaint against three accused for offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments act (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act' ). The allegations in it are briefly as follows: the first accused is an unregistered partnership firm. The second accused is the managing Partner. The third accused is a partner. Accused 2 and 3 are looking after the day-to-day administration of the first accused and are doing business. The first accused is having account in the Indian Bank. It is operated by accused 2 and 3 jointly and separately. On 6. 5. 1992 and 12. 5. 1992, the second accused had purchased rice from the complainant to a value of Rs. 66,365/- and promised to pay the amount within a week. After making part payments, the balance was not paid, despite repeated demands to accused 2 and 3, They have been evading. Finally on 20. 9. 1992, A. 2 gave a cheque on behalf of A. 1 for Rs. 61,000/ -. A. 3 knew it. When presented for encashment, the cheque was returned on the ground of insufficient funds. A. 2 and a. 3 had issued cheques in the name of first accused, knowing fully well that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the firm in the Bank. The complainant sent statutory notice on 5. 10. 1992. The accused have not paid the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of that notice. On the other hand the first accused had sent a reply. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) OUT of the three accused, the third accused had filed the petition in Cri. O. P. 7753/93. The respondent in other cases have filed complaints against the three accused, out of whom the petitioner is the third accused for offence under Section 138 of the Act on similar allegations.