9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 413 of 1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tuticorin. Analysis: 1. The issue arose when Accused No. 2 filed a petition to quash the proceedings on the grounds that statutory notice was not served on him, he had resigned before the institution of proceedings, and the cheque was issued by a different entity. The petitioner argued that without notice, no demand was made, citing a relevant case law. However, the respondent contended that notice to the company sufficed, citing a judgment from the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Delhi High Court's decision was also referenced, stating that notice to individual directors is not necessary if served on the companies. The court emphasized that evasion of notice would amount to constructive notice and should be considered during trial. 2. Regarding the resignation issue, the petitioner produced documents to show his resignation, citing a Karnataka High Court judgment emphasizing specific allegations and strict interpretation of penal provisions. However, the Supreme Court held that such matters should be decided during trial, not in quashing proceedings. The Andhra Pradesh High Court concurred, stating that detailed analysis should be avoided during quashing proceedings. 3. The last contention was that the cheque was issued by a different entity, thus not for a legally enforceable debt. The court referred to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, explaining that the debt or liability need not be from the drawer himself but can be from another person. Citing a Madras High Court case, the court rejected the argument that the cheque was not for a legally enforceable debt. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for quashing the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition and the connected Miscellaneous Petition. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, case laws, and statutory provisions considered by the court in deciding to dismiss the petition to quash the proceedings in the criminal case.
|
