Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13585 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 31.10.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 25.11.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

CRL.O.P(MD)No.13585 of 2022

and

Crl.M.P(MD)No.8651 of 2022

C.Balasubramanian

...Petitioner

vs

Velpandian

...Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,

praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in

S.T.C.No.91 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial

Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases), Tirunelveli and to

quash the same as against the Petitioner.

For Petitioner

:Mr.R.Anand

For Respondent

:Mr.T.Selvan

****

1/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13585 of 2022

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the case

in S.T.C.No.91 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Special

Judicial Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases), Tirunelveli.

2.Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and and the

learned Counsel for the Respondent.

3.It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

that the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused in S.T.C.No.91 of 2022 on

the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Negotiable

Instruments Act Cases), Tirunelveli. As per the averments in the

complaint, the Accused is C.Balasubramanian, Partner,

"Balasubramanian Blue Metal Industries", Pappiahpuram, Tirunelveli

Taluk and District.

4.It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

that as per the complaint, the Complainant and the Accused are

acquaintances. On 23.09.2021, for developing the business, a sum of

Rs.42,00,000/- was obtained as loan from the Complainant by the

Accused. On 24.12.2022, a cheque belonging to the Partnership was

2/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13585 of 2022

given to the Complainant. On the same day, it was presented to the

Bank. On the same day, it was returned as "Drawer's signature not as

per mandate". Again, the Respondent/Complainant re-presented the

cheque on 07.03.2022. The next day, the cheque was returned with

an endorsement "Drawer's signature to operate account not received".

On 12.03.2022, the Respondent/Complainant sent a Statutory Notice.

The Accused had replied to the said notice on 02.04.2022. Since the

demand was not met, the Respondent/Complainant proceeded with

lodging of the complaint on 23.04.2022.

5.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused attacked the

complaint on the following grounds:

(a)Without making Partnership Firm as accused, the Complaint

against the lone partner is not maintainable;

(2)The Statutory Notice was not issued to the Partnership Firm.

It was issued only to C.Balasubramanian, the Petitioner herein.

(3)The cheque was not returned for insufficient funds. It was

returned for "signature is not as per mandate".

6.As per Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Statutory

Notice to the Company, Partnership Firm had to be sent to the

3/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13585 of 2022

Company and individually to all its Directors, similarly, the

Partnership Firm and individually to all the partners of the

Partnership Firm. Here, Statutory Notice was sent only to

C.Balasubramanian, as individual and not as Partner.

7.It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner that, as per Point-1, without making the Partnership Firm

as accused, the complaint against one partner alone is not

maintainable. The cheque belonging to the Partnership Firm. By

virtue of the issuance of cheque and dishonour of cheque, the Firm

committed offence under Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

All the partners are deemed to have committed offence under Section

141 of the Act. In the absence of vicarious liability and in the absence

o