IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

Crl.O.P.Nos.2123 & 2143 of 2019

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.1335 & 1352 of 2019

Mrs.Pooja Madaiah

Director,

M/s.Spencers Travel Service Ltd.,

Sudharashan Building, 6^th Floor,

No.27, Whites Road, Royapettah

Chennai 600 014.

...Petitioner in both Crl.O.P.Nos.

Vs.

Mr.Khimraj Sakariya, HUF,

Rep.by its Karta

Mr.Khimiraj Sakariya

Rep.by his Power Agent

Mr.Jitendra G.Davey.

...Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2123/2019

M/s.Nakoda Traders

Rep.by its Partner

Mr.Bhawesh Kiran.

...Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2143/2019

COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions had been filed under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in

C.C.Nos.1145 & 1194 of 2018 on the file of the learned IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, (IV FTC), George Town, Chennai and to

quash the same.

For Petitioner in

both Crl.O.P.Nos.

:

Mr.P.Shiva

for Mr.L.Muralikrishnan

For Respondent

in both Crl.O.P.Nos.:

No Appearance

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

COMMON ORDER

These petitions had been filed to call for the records

in C.C.Nos.1145 & 1194 of 2018 on the file of the IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, (FTC IV), George Town, Chennai and to

quash the same.

2. When the case came up for hearing i.e., on

04.04.2022, it was observed that the name of the

Respondent/Complainant was not printed on the cause-list.

Therefore, the Petitioner's Counsel was directed to issue fresh

notice to the Respondent/Complainant returnable by 25.04.2022.

3. On 25.04.2022 , when the case was taken up for

hearing, an Affidavit of Service was filed regarding service of

notice by private mode. In one of the case, the notice was

returned with an endorsement as “party unclaimed. Returned to

sender.”

4. Today, in the cause-list, the name of the

Respondent/Complainant is not printed and printed as “awaiting

notice”. Along with Affidavit of Service, track consignment

records is also enclosed. From the records, it is found that

the delivery was confirmed on 09.04.2022. Therefore, notice on

the Respondent is to be considered as sufficient notice by this

Court.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted

that he is ready to argue the case on 25.04.2022. This Court had

found that the name of the Respondent/Complainant was not

printed in the cause-list. Hence, the case was adjourned to

27.04.2022. Today, inspite of the service of notice, no

representation on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant.

6. This Court in the light of the Affidavit of Service

filed by the Petitioner through private mode, wherein, track

consignment records found that the notice had already been

served, but in the cause-list, it is printed as “awaiting

notice”. Considering the same, the Petitioner was permitted to

argue the case. As per the submission of the learned Counsel for

the Petitioner, the Petitioner in both the Crl.O.P.Nos.2123 &

2143 of 2019 is same viz., Mrs.Pooja Madaiah, Director,

M/s.Spencers Travel Services Ltd., Sudharshan Building, 6^th

Floor, No.27, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for

the Petitioner that she is the Director of the Company by name

M/s.Spencers Travel Services Ltd., but she is not involved in

the day to day management of the Company. She had not signed any

cheque; However, she had been arrayed as Accused in the

complaint preferred by the Respondent/Complainant in

C.C.Nos.1145 & 1194 of 2018 on the file of the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, (FTC IV) George Town, Chennai,

wherein the complainants are different.

8. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the

cheque was returned not for “insufficient funds”, but for,

“stop payment”. Further, the learned Counsel for