M.HEMALATHA Vs. D.KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to call for records pertaining to C.C.Nos.3088 and 3087 of 2013 on the file of the Fast Track IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioner in Crl. O. P. No. 14829 and 15165 of 2014, who has been arrayed as A2 in C. C. Nos. 3088 and 3087 of 2013 has come forward with these applications to quash the proceedings stating that she is not the drawer of the cheque and the cheques have been issued by one Murugesan, who is the first accused in the case and hence she has not committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as Act). Hence she has come forward for quashing the same.

(3.) Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the proprietrix of M/s. Sri Balaji Dhall Mill and this respondent has supplied Dhall to M/s. Sri Balaji Dhall Mill and on behalf of the proprietrix, the husband of the petitioner, as an authorized signatory has issued the cheques and so the cheques were presented for encashment, which were returned as insufficient funds and after issuance of statutory notice under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as they have not repaid the amount, he has preferred the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that M/s. Sri Balaji Dall Mill is a Proptrietrix concern and the sales tax returns of the proprietrix concern has been filed by the petitioner to the Commercial Tax Department and as a pro-prietrix of M/s. Sri Balaji Dhall Mill, she is a necessary party to the proceedings. He further submitted that the case has been posted for the questioning under section 313, Cr. P. C. and therefore prayed for dismissal of these petitions.