9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows:- i) The petitioners submit that the 1st petitioner is a company and the petitioners 2 to 4 are the Directors of the 1st accused company. The petitioners are filing this petition to quash the proceedings initiated against them for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending in S.T.C.No.330 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore. ii) The averment set forth in the complaint is that the complainant is a Private Limited Company doing production of Mould Bases, Die-Housing and Die-sets and supplying to various industries, whereas the 1st accused had purchased the products of the complainant on credit basis on assurance to settle the invoice amount within a month. As per the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same with ulterior motive to cheat and defraud the complainant. The accused 2 to 4 being the Directors, are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the 1st accused company involved in the above affair, issued the cheque in question knowingly well about the consequences of cheque-bouncing and they personal knew well about the consequences of cheque-bouncing and their personal liability of facing the Criminal Prosecution. vi) The complainant had further stated that already the two cheques given by the accused viz., dated 14.07.2009 & 15.08.2009 for Rs. 1,11,872/- each bounced. Later, the accused had sent a Demand Draft dated 20.08.2009 towards one dishonoured cheque only. Subsequently, another cheque dated 15.10.2009 given by the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omnibus notices without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonored cheque, would not subserve the requirement of law and the proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rahul Builders-Vs-Arihant Fertilizers and Chemicals and another reported in (2008) 2 SCC 321, in which the Supreme Court has held that service of notice is imperative in character for maintaining a complaint and the same needs to be in conformity with proviso (b) of Section 138 of N.I. Act. An omnibus notices without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonored cheque, would not subserve the requirement of law. In the instant case, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
