P MEENA Vs. NIKON FOREX PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , praying this court to call for the records in C. C. No. 3511 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the entire proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioner is the 4th accused in C. C. No:3511 of 2004 pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, which was taken up on a private complaint laid by the respondent herein. It is the allegation in the complaint that the first respondent-Company has issued two cheques on 5. 12. 2003 each for Rs. 9,66,000/= in its favour. Later, they were dishonoured.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in no way connected with the affairs of the first accused business, nor is she a Director in the said establishment and her arraying as an accused in the above said case is not legally sustainable. In support of his contention, he draws attention of this court to the allegations set out in the complaint which goes to the effect that the second accused is monitoring the entire business of the first accused who is also Managing Director of the first accused and third and fourth accused are the Directors of first accused and all of them know day to day business affairs and activities of first accused and they shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and all are liable to be proceeded and punished under Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner is not at all a Director to the first Accused-Company, which is evident from Form No. 32, registered with the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act. He has produced a certified copy of the said Form NO. 32 in which it is stated that A. 2 and A. 3 alone are Directors. So prima facie it shows that the petitioner is not at all a Director of the first accused-company.