w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. T.T.G.Industries Ltd. & Others v/s M/s. Coimbatore Lakshmi Investments and Finance Company Ltd. & Others

    Crl.O.P.No.16815 of 2005 and Crl.O.P.No34388 of 2005 and Crl.O.P.No.12191 of 2007

    Decided On, 25 April 2007

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI

    For the Petitioners : B. Kumar Senior Counsel for M. Aravind Subramaniam, Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Gopinath Senior counsel for C. Anandaramani, N. Kumanan, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.230 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore and quash the same.


Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records connected with FIR dated 08.11.2005 in Crime NO.40 of 2005 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.


Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records connected with FIR dated 08.11.2005 in Crime No.40 of 2005 pending investigation on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.)


The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16815 of 2005 is second accused among two accused in C.C.No.230 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.34388 of 2005 and Crl.O.P.No.12191 of 2007 are arrayed as A-1 to A-10 in Crime No.40 of 2005 pending on the file of Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.


2. A private complaint has been filed and as per the direction issued by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the respondent police has taken the case on file in Crime No.40 of 2005 and it is pending investigation. The allegation put forth in Crime No.40 of 2005 is that the first accused company represented by its Directors 2 to 10, alleged to have borrowed a loan of Rs.1,63,40,000/- from the complainant, namely Coimbatore Lakshmi Investment and Finance, for the purpose of importing some machineries from Spain during 1995. Since the loan has not been repaid, the said complaint has been preferred before the learned Magistrate. The complainant is the same in both the cases in C.C.No.230 of 2001 and Crime No.40 of 2005. The case in C.C.No.230 of 2001 is against the company and its Managing Director. In Crime No.40 of 2005, apart from these two, the other directors also are accused.


3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the letter dated 10.02.1998, the complainant has been requested to return the cheque, since the machineries have not been taken delivery by the accused. While so, a notice dated 23.04.2000 has been given by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that the cheque dated 07.04.2000 for Rs.1,63,40,000/- was dishonoured. A reply dated 03.05.2000 has been sent to the complainant denying such liability and further it has been stated that cheques were given during 1995. In continuation of the notice given, proceedings has been initiated for an offence punishable under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore in C.C.No.230 of 2001. While so, the present case has also been filed on the same set of facts and allegations implicating all the directors of the first accused company. It is further submitted that accused Nos.3 to 10 resigned from the accused company on various dates commencing from 1996 to 2003. To substantiate that, Form 32 which has been filed before the Registrar of Companies Act, have been filed along with the petition.


4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied on a case reported in 2000(II) CTC 107, G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of UP and contended that filing of the second case and investigation taken in Crime No.40 of 2005 by the first respondent is an abuse of process of Court and seeks to quash the proceedings.


5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the observations of the Supreme Court which is made hereunder:


"A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused. They would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is proved against them. In any case there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections 406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and prosecution against the appellants for those offences is liable to be quashed."


6. Pending Crl.O.P.No.34388 of 2005 filed on behalf of the second accused, the other accused, namely A-1 and A-3 to A-10 also filed a petition to quash the proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.12191 of 2007 to quash the case in Crime No.40 of 2005 on the file of the City Crime Branch, Coimbatore.


7. Per contra the learned Senior counsel appearing for the complainant submits that it is true that on the same set of facts and allegations and on the same liability C.C.No.230 of 2001 has been taken on file for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore and the proceedings are pending. At the time filing of such private complaint, the present allegation implicating A-2 to A-10 has not been alleged. Therefore, fairly conceded that the complainant will proceed with the case in C.C.No.230 of 2001 and the present FIR pending against the petitioners may be quashed.


8. I have perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, on the same set of facts and allegations, C.C.No.230 of 2001 is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore. The liability claimed in the second case is one and the same. Two accused are facing prosecution in C.C.No.230 of 2001. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the case pending in Crime No.40 of 2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.


9. Crl.O.P.No.16815 of 2005 has been filed by the Managing Director of the first accused company to quash the proceedings under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on various grounds. On a perusal of the grounds raised and oral submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I find

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

no reason made out to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.230 of 2001 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate all the points before the trial Court. As the proceedings in C.C.No.230 of 2001 has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court, it is pending from the year 2001. Therefore, the learned Magistrate may give priority for the trial of the case and complete the same at the earliest. 10. In the net result, petition in Crl.O.P.No.16815 of 2005 is dismissed and the petitions in Crl.O.P.No.34388 of 2005 and Crl.O.P.No.12191 of 2007 are hereby allowed.
O R