High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 01 MAD CK 0003

V.T.Muralitharan, & Anr. vs N.Thiagarajan, & Ors.

Madras High Court · Decided on 18 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.Kalaiyarasan
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
7849,7850,7851,7852,7853, 7854 and 7855 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 450 words
1.

These petitions have been filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.203, 232, 359, 361, 145, 206 and 230 of 2005

respectively, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, as against the petitioner/petitioners.

2.

Petitioner/accused in all the petitions and the issue involved are one and the same and therefore common order is passed.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/petitioners in all petitions, and the learned counsel for the respondents in all petitions and perused

the materials available on record.

4.

It is averred in these petitions that the petitioner(s)/accused persons, as agent of the firm issued cheques on behalf of the firm to the

respondents/complainants. When the cheques were presented by the complainants in the bank for encashment, the same were dis-honoured for

the reason of in-sufficient funds. It is further averred that the petitioner(s)/accused persons acted only as an agent on behalf of the firm, which

consists of one Venkatammal as Managing Partner.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner(s)/accused persons acted only as an agent of the firm and he is nothing to do

with the payment due to the respondents/complainants and therefore, the cases filed against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881, are to be caused.

6.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants contends that the petitioner/s issued the cheques to all the

respondents/claimants. As per Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheques issued to the respondents shall be presumed to have

been received for the discharge of the debt, unless contrary is proved and the grounds now taken by the petitioner/s are to be agitated only before

the trial court and therefore these Criminal Original Petitions are to be dismissed.

7.

Even in the grounds of the petition, the petitioner/s admits that they issued the cheques to the respondents/complainants. The only ground taken

by the petitioner/s is that he acted only as an agent for a partnership firm and therefore the cheques are not for discharge of any existing debts. The

above contention is to be agitated only before the trial Court and it is for the petitioner/s to prove that the cheques were not issued for the existing

debts. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner/s is sans merit and these Criminal Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these

Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Paramakudi, is directed to dispose of the cases in C.C.Nos. 203, 232, 359, 361, 145, 206 and 230 of 2005, within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.