Muthuvel Industries and Others vs T. Maruthamuthu

T.V. Masilamani, J.—The petitioners are the accused before the trial Court.

The respondent/complainant through his power agent filed the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the

petitioners/accused 1 to 6 on the basis of two cheques issued by the 6th petitioner, Chief Executive of the 5th petitioner-firm. The complaint was

filed as against the petitioners 1 to 4 also on the basis that even though the cheques were issued by the 5th petitioner-firm, the petitioners 1, 3 and

5 are the organisations for whose liability their Chief Executive Mr. Subburam, representing the 2nd, 4th and 6th petitioners are also liable for the

claim. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have filed this petition to quash the proceedings before the trial Court as against the petitioners

1 to 4 on the ground that they had not issued the impugned cheques in favour of the complainant/respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the 6th petitioner representing the 5th petitioner-firm as its Chief Executive issued the

cheques in favour of the respondent/complainant and that therefore, the prosecution launched as against the petitioners 1 to 4 by the respondent

has to be quashed. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision in K.P.G. Nair Vs. Jindal Menthol India Ltd., in support of such

contention. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that on a similar set of facts, it was held by the Supreme Court in the said

decision that since the appellant therein was neither shown to be incharge of nor was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business,

the requirements of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have not been satisfied in so far as the appellant is concerned and that therefore

the prosecution as against the appellant in that case is liable to be quashed and therefore he has contended that the prosecution as against the

petitioners 1 to 4 is liable to be quashed in this case also.

In answer to such contention, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the copies of advertisement made by the first petitioner calling

for deposits, the cumulative deposit receipt issued by the 3rd petitioner, the letter addressed by the first petitioner to the complainant/respondent

relating to such deposit and ultimately the copies of cheques issued by the 5th petitioner-firm to the complainant in respect of the same deposit and

pointed out that all the said firms are represented by one and the same person, namely, the 6th petitioner who had been impleaded in the

proceedings before the trial Court as petitioner Nos.2 and 4 in the capacity as Chief Executive of the firms, the petitioners 1 and 3 respectively.

Hence, he has urged that the petitioners 1 to 4 were also responsible for the conduct of the business of the 5th petitioner-firm which issued the

cheques under question through its Chief Executive the 6th petitioner herein.

It follows necessarily even on facts that this case is similar to that of the case referred to above in the decision and therefore, I come to the

conclusion that on the basis of the ratio laid down therein, the prosecution as against the petitioners 1 to 4 prima facie appears to be maintainable.

The question of their liability will, of course, be decided on merits by the trial Court. In these circumstances, this Court hold that the present petition

to quash the proceedings as against the petitioners 1 to 4 is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is therefore dismissed accordingly. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 180 of 2001 is closed.