The sufficiency of materials for taking cognizance, the fundamental principle of jurisdiction, and the applicability of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in cases of cheque dishonour due to differences in signature were the central legal points established in the judgment.

ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records pertaining to the order, dated 06/01/2021 in STC No.51 of 2021 taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same.

This criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 06/01/2021 in STC No.51 of 2021 taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The facts in brief :-

The respondent herein filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C stating that it is a Public Limited Company and doing the business of distribution of IT and NON-IT products. In the course of the above said business activities, the accused persons were also having business dealings, they have placed orders and purchased the valuable articles, etc. through the invoices as detailed in the complaint.

So in discharge of the above said liability, the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.2,45,08,824/- drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110 060 and that was deposited for payment through their Banker namely HDFC Bank, Thillai Nagar, Trichy, on 04/11/2020, but that came to be dishonoured due to the reason “Drawer's sign differs”. The intimation was received by the company, on 07/11/2020. They issued a statutory notice, dated 11/11/2020 to all the accused persons. Even though, they received the notice, they failed to make the payment. But a request has been received, on 02/12/2020 making untenable averments.

3. The first accused is the Limited Company and A2 to A5 are the Directors. They personally involved in the above said transactions. So they were jointly and severally liable.

4.The above said case was taken cognizance by the trial court, on 06/01/2021 and summons were issued. After that, this revision petition has been filed making several grounds.

5. Heard both sides.

6. It is a business transaction issue involving the issuance of cheque and subsequent dishonour, etc., facts. On the face of it, even though, the case appears to be simple, several grounds have been raised by the petitioners stating that no company seal is found in the cheque and who issued the cheque is not identified, since the cheque has been dishonoured due to the difference in signature; So the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted.

7. Apart from that, it is also stated that sufficient materials have not been placed before the trial court to take cognizance of the case. So also the jurisdiction point has also been raised that there was no legally enforceable liability between the accused persons and the complainant.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners went to the extent of stating that as contemplated under section 202(2) Cr.P.C, the trial court ought to have sent the complaint for proper investigation by police.

9. Now let us straightaway go to the documents that are filed by the complainant. The copy of the invoices to show the transactions between the parties have been produced. The disputed cheque copy is also available, wherein we see that the drawee name is mentioned as 'Redington India Limited', the complainant herein, it was stated to be signed by one of the Authorised signatories on beh