in Crl.O.P.(MD).7849/2010 S.Jegankumar .. Respondent / Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).7850/2010 R.Vadivelu .. Respondent / Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).7851/2010 S.Kasi Visvanathan .. Respondent / Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).7852/2010 N.Saravanan .. Respondent / Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).7853/2010 S.Ramadass .. Respondent / Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).7854/2010 Sree Kamatchi & Co. .. Respondent / Complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD).7855/2010 Common Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records pertaining to the C.C.Nos.203, 232, 359, 361, 145, 206 and 230 of 2005 respectively, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner/petitioners.
!For Petitioner/Petitioners : Mr.J.Imran Khan for V.Manikandan in all petitions For Respondents : Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai for S.Muthal Raj in all petitions :COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.203, 232, 359, 361, 145, 206 and 230 of 2005 respectively, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, as against the petitioner/petitioners.
2. Petitioner/accused in all the petitions and the issue involved are one and the same and therefore common order is passed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/petitioners in all petitions, and the learned counsel for the respondents in all petitions and perused the materials available on record.
4. It is averred in these petitions that the petitioner(s)/accused persons, as agent of the firm issued cheques on behalf of the firm to the respondents/complainants. When the cheques were presented by the complainants in the bank for encashment, the same were dis-honoured for the reason of in- sufficient funds. It is further averred that the petitioner(s)/accused persons acted only as an agent on behalf of the firm, which consists of one Venkatammal as Managing Partner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner(s)/accused persons acted only as an agent of the firm and he is nothing to do with the payment due to the respondents/complainants and therefore, the cases filed against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are to be caused.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants contends that the petitioner/s issued the cheques to all the respondents/claimants. As per
Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheques issued to the respondents shall be presumed to have been received for the discharge of the debt, unless contrary is proved and the grounds now taken by the petitioner/s are to be agitated only before the trial court and therefore these Criminal Original Petitions are to be dismissed.
7. Even in the grounds of the petition, the petitioner/s admits that they issued the cheques to the respondents/complainants. The only ground taken by the petitioner/s is that he acted only as an agent for a partnership firm and therefore the cheques are not for discharge of any existing debts. The above contention is to be agitated only before the trial Court and it is for the petitioner/s to prove that the cheques were not issued for the existing debts. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner/s is sans merit and these Criminal Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, is directed to dispose of the cases in C.C.Nos. 203, 232, 359, 361, 145, 206 and 230 of 2005, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.