IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.03.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.18247 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007 P. Sivaprakasam ..Petitioner Versus R. Karthikeyan ..Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records in C.C. No. 1633 of 2006 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner / A3. For Petitioner : Mr.S. Thirumavalavan For Respondent : Mr.S. Swamidoss Manokaran O R D E R This petition seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1633 of 2006 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The case is one relating to the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act wherein the first accused is a proprietary concern, the second accused is the proprietor thereof and the third accused / petitioner is the father of the second accused. 2. A perusal of the complaint shows that this petitioner has been roped in as one of the accused on the strength of allegations that he joined the second accused in seeking a loan from the respondent. 3. I have perused the materials available on record having regard to the submission made. 4. When the borrower is admittedly a proprietary concern, none other than the proprietor i.e. the second accused can be roped in. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs. Fine Tubes in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 455, "a person may carry on business in the name of a business concern, but he being https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proprietor thereof, would be solely responsible for conduct of its affairs". 5. In view of the above decision, the complainant's case clearly is an abuse of process of law. Under such circumstances, this petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No. 1633 of 2006 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai are quashed in so far as this petitioner / third accused is concerned. 6. Given the long pendency of the case before the lower Court, the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is directed to dispose of the case pending in C.C. No. 1633 of 2006 expeditiously. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. -do- Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. + 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Thirumavalavan, Advocate. S.R.No.20600. Crl.O.P.No.18247 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007 RR (CO) GSK 21.04.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/