IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23.04.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No. 25122 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Krishna Karthikeyani .. Petitioner Vs. M.Thiagarajn .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.1791/2007 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Tiruppur. For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in S.T.C.No.1791/2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur and quash the same.
2.The ingredients of the complaint is as follows:-
The complainant has filed the S.T.C.No.1791/2007 against three accused on an alleged offence under section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant states that the accused had dealings with him in the purchase of yarn and hosiery fabric between 01.08.1998 and 18.02.1999. As per the complainant’s account kept in the regular course of business, as on 18.02.1999, a sum of Rs.22,53,901.66 is due and payable by the accused to the complainant, towards principal. The accused No.2 gave eight cheques to the complainant (Cheque No.442566 for Rs.2,75,000/-, Cheque No.442567 for Rs.2,92,494/-, Cheque No.442568 for Rs.2,84,188.16, Cheque No.442569 for Rs.2,54,886/-, Cheque No.442570 for Rs.2,94,976/-, Cheque No.442571 for Rs.2,95,250/-, Cheque No.442572 for Rs.2,97,935.20 and Cheque No.442573 for Rs.2,63,553/-) drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Tiruppur with the knowledge and consent of the third accused. The cheques were dated 30.06.2000, but on request by the accused, the date of the cheques were altered to 30.12.2000 by accused No.2 and further altered subsequently to 17.07.2004 with the knowledge of accused No.3. On presenting the said cheques on 07.01.2005, through his bankers viz Corporation Bank, Tiruppur, the said cheques were returned on the same day with an endorsement “Account closed”. It is alleged by the petitioner that an accused No.2 and 3 were aware that the cheque could not be honoured due to inadequate balance in their account, they had closed the bank account.
3.The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice dated 05.02.2005. The notice was received by all the accused on 08.02.2005 and the accused had sent a reply on 22.02.2005, but did not repay the amount. Hence, the complaint has been lodged by the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruppur. Supporting his complaint, the complainant had furnished 12 documents and 3 witnesses.
4.The petitioner has challenged the complaint through Criminal Original Petition No.25122 of 2007 stating that the petitioner/3rd accused seized to be a Director of 1st accused company with effect from 27.03.2001 as per the certified copy of Form 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Coimbatore. Further, the petitioner is not the signatory to the dishonoured cheques and the cheques, even as per the complaint, had been drawn on 17.07.2004 whereas the petitioner had retired from the Directorship on 27.03.2001.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case has submitted a Citation in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 135, Saroj Kumar Poddar, ..Appellant Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, ..respondents and also filed certified copy of Form 32 dated 19.04.2007, stating that the petitioner/accused 3 had resigned the Directorship from the said Company.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent advanced their arguments. The court is of the view that the case cited by the petitioner’s counsel is not applicable in this case, since the business transaction happened during the period between 01.08.1998 and 18.02.1999. It is only during this period, the due amount was paid by way of cheque to the complainant. In the said period, the petitioner/accused 3 was Director of the Company. Further, it is relevant to note that the accused No.2 is none other than her husband, who is also one of the Directors.
7.Under the circumstances, the case has to be tried and so the case in STC No.1791 of 2007 has got to be tried, for justice to be meted out properly. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition No.25122 of 2007 is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
krk
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Tiruppur.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras 104