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



Raina Aejaz, Director M/s. Irbaz Leather Pvt. Ltd. v/s M/s. Mass leather, Rep. by its Proprietor, A.R. Mubarak Alikhan & Others

    Crl.O.P.No. 26123 of 2014 & M.P.No. 1 of 2014

    Decided On, 19 September 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K. VASUKI

    For the Petitioner: Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Advocate. For the Respondent: ---



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in STC No.366 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (FTC -II) at Erode and quash the same.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The relief sought for herein is to quash the proceedings in STC No.366 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.III, Erode, arising out of the complaint filed by the first respondent herein, for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The petitioner herein is the third accused in STC No.366/2014. The two grounds on which the relief sought for herein are that (i) there is no necessary averment in the complaint regarding the liability of the Director and regarding the role played by the petitioner herein in the affairs of the company during the relevant point of time; and (ii) the complaint is not presented before the proper forum, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (4) CTC 666 (Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra).

4. As far as the first ground is concerned, this court is of the view that there is sufficient averment to the effect that A2 and A3, who are the Managing Director and Director of A1 company, are authorised to operate the bank account on behalf of the first accused company and have direct business transaction arising out of which is the present liability alleged in the complaint.

5. Regarding the second ground, this Court, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex court in para 20 of the decision cited on the side of the petitioner, is inclined to direct the trial court, to return the complaint filed by the first respondent herein to be presented before the proper court, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2014 (4) CTC 666 (Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra).

6. With the above direction, th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. The appearance of the petitioner before the trial court is dispensed with for the hearings except as and when required and during trial and MP.No.1/2014 is accordingly ordered.
O R