The petitioner stated in her petition that she is the 3rd accused in CC No.2553 of 2000. The said complaint has been filed by the Respondent/ Complainant herein. The petitioner further submits that she is not in anyway connected with the above said case which is filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Further, the petitioner states that she is neither a Director of the said company nor a signatory of the dishonoured cheque. Further, she can never be arrayed as an accused in the said case. The petitioner resigned her job on 30/06/2000. And thereafter she has joined another company. The petitioner, in support of her case, has filed her appointment letter in the said company, Promotion letter of the said company and relieving order of the said company. As such, she is not liable to pay the cheque amount and hence the petitioner seeks to call for the records in CC No.2553 of 2000 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash all further proceedings.
2. The respondent/complainant stated in their complaint that the 1st accused company and 2nd , 3rd & 4th accused are Directors of the company. They are in charge of and responsible for the day to day affairs and conduct of the business of the company. The complainant further stated that they provided security services to the 1st accused company for which the accused company issued a cheque on 22/09/1999 for a sum of Rs.1,91,293/-. The said cheque was drawn on American Express Bank Ltd., Madras.
3. The respondent/complainant further submitted that the said cheque was presented on 22/09/1999 to their banker, Syndicate Bank, Kodambakkam branch for realisation. The same was dishonoured and returned on 23/09/1999. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant had observed all legal formalities as per Negotiable Instrument Act. Subsequently, the complainant approached the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and filed the above CC No.2553 of 2000. In support of the said complaint, the complainant filed four documents and a list of three witnesses.
4. The Learned Magistrate, considering the ingredients of the complaint and perusal of the documents, has taken the case on his file and issued summon to the petitioner herein. Now, the petitioner has approached this Honourable Court by way of petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records in CC No.2553 of 2000 on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and quash all further proceedings.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the case is under a trial stage. Further, the said cheque transaction happened in the year 1999. The petitioner has resigned her post in the year 2000. In the said relevant period, the petitioner had been an employee with the said accused company. Therefore the petitioner has to face trial.
6. In such circumstances, the court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in CC No.2553 of 2000, and hence the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed accordingly. However, Considering that the case has been filed in the year 2000, the Court directs the Learned Magistrate to dispose the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed as not necessary.
mra To
1. The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras