Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to be in overall control of the firm's business, and prosecution under Section 138 is limited to the drawer of the cheque.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining in S.T.C.Nos.274 of 2018, 1168 of 2017 and 1580 of 2017 respectively filed by the respondent herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur and quash the same in respect to the petitioner herein.)

For Petitioner

Common Order

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the cases in S.T.C.Nos.274 of 2018, 1168 of 2017 and 1580 of 2017, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur and quash the same as against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the third accused in all the three S.T.C., cases pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchendur. The respondent in these Criminal Original Petitions has filed private complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against three persons including the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The case of the complainant is that the first accused is a partnership firm, that the accused 2 and 3 are its partners, that there existed good relationship between the families of the complainant and the accused, that the accused 2 and 3 have borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 08.10.2016 to meet out their urgent business purposes, that in order to repay the loan amount, the accused 2 and 3 and on behalf of the first accused and through the second accused, who is the authorized signatory, have issued six cheques for Rs.1,00,000/- each, drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Aathoor Branch in favour of the complainant, that the cheques were presented for collection, that five cheques were returned for want of sufficient funds in the bank account of the accused and the last cheque was returned as time bar, that the complainant has sent a legal notice dated 06.04.2017, demanding payment of the amounts covered by the cheque, that the accused having received the legal notice have neither sent any reply nor made any payment, that the second accused has sent a notice dated 07.02.2017 alleging that he had received only Rs.1,25,000/- as loan and that therefore, the complainant was constrained to lodge the above complaints.

4. The petitioner's case is that she is working as a Teacher in the Girls Higher Secondary School at Eral, that the first accused is a proprietorship concern and not a partnership firm as alleged by the complainant, that the second accused A.R.R.Muthuramalingam is her husband and the proprietor of the first accused concern and that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the business of the first accused concern, nor with the issuance of the alleged cheques.

5. It is pertinent to note that the complainant in the complaint has arrayed the first accused M/s Vadivoo Agency as a partnership concern and the second accused A.R.R.Muthuramalingam as partner and authorized signatory and Tmt.M.Buvaneswari as partner of the first accused firm. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the complainant has not produced any prima facie material to show that the first accused is a partnership firm and the accused 2 and 3 are its partners. The petitioner has now taken a specific stand that the first accused is not a partnership firm and is a sole proprietorship concern and that the second accused is the sole proprietor. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced the trading and profit and loss account for the year ended 31.03.2015 issued by their Chartered Accountant along with Income Tax returns acknowledgment for the assessment year 2014-2015, loan passbook issued by the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., and the copies of the cheque allegedly issued by the first accused.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the above documents are self-serving documents and they cannot be relied at this stage to decide about the nature of the first a