2001 (10) TMI 1161

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resented by its proprietor S.K. Krishnamurthy and the second accused is S.K. Krishnamurthy and they entered into an agreement for sale with the complainant and he paid a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/-. The transaction did not materialise and hence the first accused concern and its proprietor gave a cheque in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the cheque got dishonoured on 22.5.1997 with an endorsement "Funds insufficient". At the request of second accused, the cheque was represented on 3.6.1997 and 14.6.1997 and on both the occasions, the cheque got dishonoured for the same reason and thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer's notice, dated 25.6.1997, to the accused and it was received by the accused. No payment had been made even the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ither indict or be indicted. 5. Mr. V. Krishnamoorthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, mainly relied on the decision of this Court in Sri Sivasakthi Industries, rep. by its proprietor, Raman v. Arikant Metal Corporation, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 347. In that case, the first accused was a concern represented by proprietor Raman and the second accused was Raman and they were proceeded against for an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Pratap Singh, J, held that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are one and the same person and, as such, the proceedings as against the first accused, namely, M/s. Sri Sivasakthi Industries, represented by its proprietor, Raman, are to be quashed and the complaint is maintainable as against the second accused. The facts of t....