9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner that the present being petitioners are not signatory to be cheque and hence, the proceedings against that needs to be quashed cannot be entertained at this stage, in view of factual matrix of the case. In view of the aforesaid of the facts of the case and documents relied upon by the respondent/complainant herein. The truth and genuineness of the documents relied upon by the respondent/complainant can only be gone into at the time of trial before the trial Court and with these observations, this Court is of the considered view that this Criminal Original Petition as devoid of merits and same is rejected. It is open to the petitioners/accused 3,4,and 6 to raise objections as to the admissibility and reliability of the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of ₹ 10,50,000/- to discharge liability occurred in course of transactions. After receipt of the cheque he has presented the cheque for collection, but the same were returned as payment stopped . Aggrieved over the same, the respondent issued legal notice to the petitioners and two others 03.05.2013. The petitioner herein also issued a suitable reply notice to the respondent on 10.06.2013 wherein they have categorically stated that the petitioners 2 and 3 have no role in the said transactions, but even then the respondent filed the above complaint by implicating this petitioner as accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and aggrieved over the same the petitioner herein filing the above Criminal Original Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A6 are partners in the A1 Firm. While, A5 is the the proprietary of the A2 Properitory concern. 7. According to the respondent/complainant on 30.01.2013, the proprietor of Revathy Agency, viz Mokan has requested the Sri Sai Krishna Feeds to pay the bill. Pending against them in the Manisha Traders from and out of the amount due to be payable by the Sai Krishna Feeds/first accused and that letter is dated 30.07.2013 and that another document dated 05.02.2013 reflecting supply of Maize by the complainant to the Sri Sai Krishna feeds on various dates mode of transportation, weight, trade, credit and debit in the form of balance sheet also signed by him. So also, the copy of the another letter has been filed dated 18.03.2013 wherein Sri Sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the considered view that whether the documents now filed before this Court is true or not? and genuine, can be decided only during the course of trial and not by this Court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Besides, this Court is not expressing any view on the truth and genuineness of the letter of undertaking alleged to have given by the second accused on behalf of the first accused and after going through the averments made in the complaint before the trial Court. Since, there is a specific allegation against all the accused and as such, a cheque has been issued authorized signatory for Sai Farms and Feeds/second accused and in view of the certain documents filed, the truth and genuineity will be decided only by the tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
