Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2107 (MAD)

Vivek Mathur v. Ajit Mardia

2018-07-12

P.N.PRAKASH

body2018
ORDER : P.N. PRAKASH, J. 1. This petition has been filed to quash the private complaint in STC No. 389 of 2016 pending trial on the file of the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Ambattur as illegal. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 2. It is the case of Ajit Mardia [the de facto complainant] that he had supplied Aluminum Die casting components to the accused, towards which, a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores was due; the accused issued two cheques, viz., cheque no. 000305 dated 18.07.2015 for Rs. 50 lakhs and cheque no. 000306 dated 30.07.2015 for Rs. 1 crore; the complainant presented the cheque dated 18.07.2015 on 23.07.2015 and the same was dishonoured; at the request of the accused, the complainant re-presented the cheque dated 18.07.2015 along with the cheque dated 30.07.2015 on 20.10.2015 and both the cheques were dishonoured. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 11.11.2015 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and thereafter, has filed the present complaint in STC No. 389 of 2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is pending on the file of the Fast Track Court, (Magisterial level), Ambattur, against Vivek Mathur [A1] and his wife Aseel Mathur [A2], challenging which, the accused are before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned counsel for the complainant. 4. On a perusal of the impugned cheques, it is seen that the cheques have been issued by Sieflex Sumeet Home Automation Pvt. Ltd., signed by the Director Vivek Mathur [A1]. The first cheque is dated 18.07.2015 and the same has been re-presented on 20.10.2015, which means, that the cheque has been presented after its life time. In other words, the life time of the cheque dated 18.07.2015 is 18.10.2015, whereas, it has been presented on 20.10.2015 and therefore, that cheque has been returned on the ground that "it is not valid". Under such circumstances, there cannot be a prosecution of the accused with respect to the cheque dated 18.07.2015 for Rs. 50 lakhs. Further, the complainant has not made Sieflex Sumeet Home Automation Pvt. Ltd. as accused. The complainant has shown only Vivek Mathur [A1] and Aseel Mathur [A2] as accused. 5. Under such circumstances, there cannot be a prosecution of the accused with respect to the cheque dated 18.07.2015 for Rs. 50 lakhs. Further, the complainant has not made Sieflex Sumeet Home Automation Pvt. Ltd. as accused. The complainant has shown only Vivek Mathur [A1] and Aseel Mathur [A2] as accused. 5. In Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited [2012-2-L.W. (Crl.) 73 : 2012-4-L.W. 24 SN : (2012) 5 SCC 661 ], a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in paragraph no. 59, has held as follows: "59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh [ (1970) 3 SCC 491 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 97] which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal [ (1984) 4 SCC 352 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 620] does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada [ (2000) 1 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 174] is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery [ (1987) 3 SCC 684 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 632] has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove. (emphasis supplied) 6. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that it is not his case that the supply was made to Sieflex Sumeet Home Automation Pvt. Ltd. and that it is also not his case that it was Sieflex Sumeet Home Automation Pvt. Ltd. that had given the cheque. He further submitted that it is his case that the cheque was issued from the individual account of Vivek Mathur [A1]. I am unable to countenance this submission for the following reasons: 1. In the complaint as well in the sworn statement of Ajit Mardia, he has stated as follows: "4. He further submitted that it is his case that the cheque was issued from the individual account of Vivek Mathur [A1]. I am unable to countenance this submission for the following reasons: 1. In the complaint as well in the sworn statement of Ajit Mardia, he has stated as follows: "4. I submits that they are doing the business of supplying Aluminium Die casting Components used in the facturing of Mixes by the accused in their company and both the accused had approached the complainant for supplying the same on credit basis." 2. If that is so, there would have been no reason to make Aseel Mathur [A2] W/o Vivek Mathur [A1] as co-accused. 3. Both Vivek Mathur [A1] and Aseel Mathur [A2] have been shown as Directors of Sieflex Sumeet Home Automation Pvt. Ltd. 4. In the impugned cheques, it is clearly stated as follows: "M/S SIEFLEX SUMEET HOME AUTOMATION PVT LTD SIEFLEX SUMEET HOME AUTOMATION PVT LTD Sd/- DIRECTOR" In the light of such overwhelming materials, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the impugned cheques were issued from the individual account of Vivek Mathur [A1] may not cut ice. In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in STC No. 389 of 2016 pending trial on the file of the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Ambattur are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.