PARTHASARATHY Vs. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides and perused the materials available on record.

(2.) ACCUSED No.2 in C.C.No.177 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, is the petitioner herein. He has sought for an order quashing the said criminal proceedings instituted on a private complaint preferred by the Respondent herein against the petitioner herein and one Neminathan (accused no.1), describing both of them to be proprietors of M/s. Lakshmipriya Thengai Powder, for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question was issued in the name of M/s. Lakshmipriya Thengai Powder signed by the said Neminathan, as its proprietor.

(3.) YET another vital point has also been raised by the petitioner herein, questioning the proprietary of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate taking the complaint on file and registering it as a calendar case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint should not have been taken on file without the production of the original dishonoured cheque. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in R. Sarathkumar Vs. Inspector of Police, C9 Police Station, Neelankarai, Chennai reported in 2004 MLJ (Crl.) 421. The following guidelines have been issued by this court in the above said judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.