TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes criminal proceedings against petitioner in section 138 cases due to lack of evidence</h1> <h3>Mrs. Meenakshi Sathish Versus M/s. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. rep by its Regional manager Mr. L. Krishnakumar, M/s. AGTEC Marketing Service, Pandalam rep by its Managing Partner Mrs. Lalitha S. Menon, Mrs. Lalitha S. Menon, Mrs. Usha Chandrakumar</h3> The court quashes the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the fourth accused in three cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ... - Issues Involved:The judgment involves the quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who is the fourth accused in three cases under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Allegations against the PetitionerThe complainant alleges that the petitioner, as part of a partnership firm, issued cheques that were later dishonored. The petitioner claims to have retired from the firm before the cheques were issued and argues that she should not be held liable.Issue 2: Retirement of the PetitionerThe petitioner asserts that she retired from the partnership firm before the issuance of the cheques and had informed the Income Tax Department about her retirement. She argues that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the firm and should not be prosecuted under the Negotiable Instruments Act.Issue 3: Legal Obligations of PartnersThe complainant argues that the petitioner did not follow the legal requirements for retirement from an unregistered partnership firm, as per sections 45 and 72 of the Partnership Act, which state that public notice must be given to dissolve liability.Issue 4: Sufficiency of AllegationsThe court examines whether the allegations against the petitioner are sufficient to prosecute her under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is determined that the vague allegations do not establish the petitioner's active role in the firm's business to warrant criminal liability.Conclusion:The court quashes the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, ruling that the vague allegations and lack of evidence of her active involvement in the partnership firm's business do not justify prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
TaxTMI 
