M MOHAN Vs. R MANIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in respect of the complaint filed by the respondent herein in C.C.No.256 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal and quash the same.

(2.) The short facts of this case is that the accused 3,4 and 6 are the petitioners herein. The petitioner herein filed this quash petition, to quash the complaint given by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein and others before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal in C.C.No.256 of 2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The respondent herein filed the above complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. As per the complaint of the respondent, the petitioner herein and the 5th accused are partners of 2nd accused Sai Farms and Feeds and on behalf of the 2nd accused the 5th accused alleged to have executed 14 cheques to a value of Rs.10,50,000/- to discharge liability occurred in course of transactions. After receipt of the cheque he has presented the cheque for collection, but the same were returned as "payment stopped". Aggrieved over the same, the respondent issued legal notice to the petitioners and two others 03.05.2013. The petitioner herein also issued a suitable reply notice to the respondent on 10.06.2013 wherein they have categorically stated that the petitioners 2 and 3 have no role in the said transactions, but even then the respondent filed the above complaint by implicating this petitioner as accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and aggrieved over the same the petitioner herein filing the above Criminal Original Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are neither the signatory nor the partner to the 2nd accused, however it is not correct to implicate the petitioner herein as accused in the above case. The Judicial Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner herein, since on behalf of the 2nd accused the 5th accused has issued cheque in favour of the respondent, under such circumstances it is not correct to implicate the petitioners as accused since they are neither signatory of the cheque nor having any role under the 2nd accused.