PINNACLE IMPEX Vs. S. SENTHIL RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC.No.268 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate(Fast Track Court), Tiruppur.

(2.) Mr.M.Guruprasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused A1 to A3 in the proceedings initiated by the respondent for the offences punishable under Ss. 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners placed order to the respondent and purchased by the purchased order dtd. 16/12/2017. After delivery of goods, the petitioners issued cheque to discharge their liability signed by the second petitioner for a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs. The said cheque was presented for collection and the same was returned dishonoured with the endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer'. After issuance of statutory notice, the complaint has been initiated under Ss. 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance, the trial court did not follow the procedure contemplated under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. Further he submitted that even as per the complaint there is absolutely no material to connect the third petitioner to the complaint and as such the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance as against the third petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the third petitioner is not at all liable for any offence as averred by the complainant. The third petitioner is merely a partner of the company and http://www.judis.nic.in it is not sufficient to make the person liable under Sec. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Even as per the complaint, there is no specific allegation and did not even whisper about his role in the alleged transaction and he is also not responsible for day to day affairs of the first petitioner firm. The entire allegations made in the petition are vague and bald. Therefore, the third petitioner is not at all liable to be prosecuted. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Aparna A.Shah Vs. Sheth Developers Private Limited and Another reported in (2013) 8 SCC 71 and in the case of Abhijit Pawar Vs.Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 528 and also in the case of Anil Pathak, Director of Hallmark Living Space Pvt Ltd., Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd, rep by its Authorized Rep.V.K.Natarajan reported in 2019 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 1 (Mad).