Sri Srinath Hegde vs M/s Wipro E Peripherals Ltd.

N. Ananda

The petitioner, arrayed as accused in CC. No. 1304/2006 pending trial for an offence punishable u/s 538 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has filed this petition to quash the proceedings. I have heard Sri M.S. Bhagwat, Learned Counsel for petitioner

The Learned Counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:

i) The petitioner is not the Proprietor of M/s. Siddartha Enterprises.

ii) The Proprietorship concern does not fall within the purview of Section 141 of the N.I. Act. Therefore, complaint u/s 138 of the Act for dishonour of cheque drawn by a Propriety concern can be filed against the Proprietor alone.

iii) The legal notice issued by respondent would reveal that petitioner is not the Proprietor of M/s. Siddartha Enterprises.

iv) The cheque in question discloses that petitioner had signed the cheque as the authorised signatory for M/s. Siddartha Enterprises.

v) The respondents have not filed statement of objection.

vi) In the circumstances, no criminal liability can be attached to petitioner and continuation of trial before the Court below would be abuse of process of law.

The Learned Counsel for petitioner has relied on following decisions:

1). Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs. Fine Tubes,

2). Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.,

3). CDJ 1996 Calcutta High Court 162 (in the case of Sova Mukherjee Vs. Rajiv Mehra (Crl.Rev. Appeal No. 65/1995)

The legal position submitted by the Learned Counsel for petitioner that a Propriety concern does not fall under the purview of Section 141 of the N.I. Act cannot be disputed, so also the legal position for dishonour of cheques drawn by the Propriety concerned can be filed only against the Proprietor cannot be disputed.

The Learned Counsel for petitioner has produced certain documents to show that the account on which cheque was drawn was held by M/s. Siddartha Enterprises and the proprietrix of M/s. Siddartha Enterprises is one Mrs. Shashikala Hegde (wife of petitioner).

In the legal notice, it is not stated that Mrs. Shashikala Hegde is the Proprietrix of M/s. Siddartha Enterprises. The legal notice was not caused to Mrs. Shashikala Hegde. The documents relied upon by petitioner cannot be accepted at their face value. The questions whether petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s. Siddaratha Enterprises or petitioner has drawn the cheque as authorised signatory of M/s. Siddartha Enterprises are disputed questions of facts which cannot be resolved in a petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. These disputed facts will be resolved after holding a trial before the trial Court. In the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to quash the proceedings. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are restricted for the decision of this petition and the learned trial Judge shall not be influenced by the observations made herein during subsequent stages of the case.