A. Subramanyam and Others vs Shabbir Enterprises

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Criminal Original Petitions are to call for the records in C. C. Nos. 6156, 6157, 6159, 6160, 6158 of 2004 on the file of

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. VII, George Town, Chennai and to quash the same.

The petitioners who are accused in C. C. Nos. 6156, 6157, 6159, 6160, 6158 of 2004 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.

VII, George Town, Chennai, moved these Criminal Original Petitions, seeking quashment of those Calender Cases; pending on the file of VII

Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

The petitioners are the accused in five cases u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The ground on which the criminal proceedings are sought to be quashed are:

(a) The complainant has not chosen to state specifically that the petitioners were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the

time of commission of the offences.

(b) The statutory notices issued by the complainant were admittedly not received by some of the accused.

(c) Though it has been alleged that cheques were issued for a total sum of Rs. 8,03,903/-, the complainant has sought to fasten the liability of the

said amount on the petitioners in each and every calendar cases referred to above.

The complainant has specifically stated that the petitioners herein also were responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company.

However, it has been stated that the petitioners also made purchase orders and purchased the materials and issued the cheques and committed the

offence punishable u/s 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Of course, the complainant has not incorporated the phrase ""at

the time of commission of offence"" in the complaint. The Court will have to give a compendious reading of the entire facts found in the complaint.

While describing the cause of action for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant has chosen to state that the

petitioners were also responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. Therefore, the non-incorporation of the phrase ""at the time of

commission of the offence"", thereunder in the complainant does not provide scope for nullifying the proceedings initiated by the petitioners.

It is not as if the complainant had not issued any notice to the petitioners herein. He had stated in the complaint that he had issued notice to some

of the accused but they refused to receive the notice. The question whether he had despatched the statutory notices to the correct address will be

gone into by the trial Court. Of course in paragraph 9 of the petitions, the respondents have chosen to state that the accused are liable to pay a

total sum of Rs. 8,03,903/- towards the supply of materials. The total amount due to the complainant has been stated so in paragraph 9 of the

complaint. If paragraph 9 is read in juxtaposition with paragraph 3, it will disclose that the petitioners and others are liable to pay a sum of Rs.

71,550/- for each cheque aggregating to Rs. 8,03,903/-. The whole complaint cannot be quashed simply because the complainant has chosen to

state in paragraph 9 of each and every complaint that the accused were liable to pay Rs. 8,03,903/-, what he had meant was the total amount due

under various cheques under prosecution.

The petitioners are at liberty to put forth their pleas taken in the criminal revision petitions before the trial Court. The grounds set up in these

petitions are not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings and therefore, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the

connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 947 to 956 of 2006 are also dismissed.