1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 13243 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 2 & 3 of 2010 And Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7894 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 2 & 3 of 2010 1.Tmt.R.Rajeswari 2.N.Ramanathan :Petitioner/Accused No.1&2 in both Petitions -Vs- N.Lakshmanan :Respondent/Complainant in both Petitions represented through his power agent A.T.Sambandam, S/o.Athappan Chettiar. PRAYER IN CRL.O.P.(MD).No. 13243 of 2011: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in S.T.C.No. 1665 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner. PRAYER IN CRL.O.P.(MD).No. 7894 of 2011: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in S.T.C.No. 532 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner. For Petitioners in both Petitions : Mr.M.Subash Babu for Mr.M.Mohansundaram For Respondent in both Petitions : Mr.P.Ramasamy ORDER Seeking to quash the complaint in S.T.C.Nos. 1665 & 532 of 2011 pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, the petitioners who are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said case, have come forward with this Petition. 2.The respondent is the complainant in the said case. It is the case instituted as private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the cheques in question were issued only by the first accused and the second accused has got nothing to do with the offences. Therefore, the private complaint as against the petitioner is not maintainable. 4.But the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the complaint was preferred against both the accused, the Trial Court has taken cognizance on the said complaint as against the first petitioner alone. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Lower Court has not taken cognizance as against the second petitioner, namely, N.Ramanathan. The said statement is recorded. 6.In respect of the first petitioner, since there are allegations in the complaint in respect of issuance of cheque, notice etc., I do not find any merits as against the first petitioner. 7.In view of the above, this Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the Lower Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Principal District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. +1CC to Mr.P.Ramasamy, Advocate. SR.No.36444. Vsg RP/08.11.2011/2P/4C. Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 13243 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 2 & 3 of 2010 And Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7894 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 2 & 3 of 2010 20.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/