TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e received cheque from the third respondent firmduly signed by the first respondent, however, the cheque was nothonoured. 2.The said petition was dismissed by the learned MetropolitanMagistrate (FTC-II) Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai, on the ground thatthe materials and evidences did not disclose any prima facie caseagainst the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner haspreferred this revision. 3.To arrive at the conclusion, the learned Magistrate has reliedupon several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, one of such decisionis the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (16) SCC 1 (Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs. State of Maharastra), whereinit is held that to fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essesand the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, under section 202of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is of opinion that there is nosufficient ground for proceeding, the learned Magistrate shall dismissthe complaint, and in every such case the learned Magistrate shallbriefly record the reasons for doing so. 8.The un-disputed facts disclosed in the materials available onrecord are that there was business transaction inbetween thepetitioner and the third respondent firm owned by respondents 1 and2. During the business transaction, the petitioner/ complainanttransferred a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- to the accounts of respondents 1and 3. After receipt of the said sum, for the due discharge of theabove said sum, the accused 1 and 2 issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany. In that background,the accused therein was acquitted from the offence. However, in thepresent case on hand, the lower Court at the initial stage itself, withouteven issuing notice to the respondents has dismissed the complaint atthe stage of Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 12.The issue involved in the present case is whether the lowerCourt can dismiss the complaint at the preliminary stage with theabove said grounds. 13.Chapter XVII was introduced in the Negotiable InstrumentsAct by the banking, public financial institution, under the NegotiableInstruments Law, Amendment Act, 1998 (66 of 1988 w.e.f. 1.4.1989)with the object of promoting banking operation and ensuring crediblebusiness transaction through banks. The said Chapter containsSe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in favour of the complainant in the due course of businesstransaction. Thereafter, the complainant has to produce bankersmemo with an endorsement and there must be legal notice to theaccused for claiming the cheque amount from the accused. Thesethree documents are very much relevant to present a complaint underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 17.In the present case, on perusal of the complaint, all the threedocuments are annexed along with the complaint and the list ofwitness are also annexed including the Manager of the Central Bankand it is relevant to mention Section 142 of the Act deals withcognizance of offence. 18.As per Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,notwithstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C.,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for proceedingwith the complaint. The word 'sufficient ground' means thesatisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused byevidence of witness and relevant materials. The lower Court is notrequired to access the evidence and consider the probabilities or theprobabilities of the version of the complaint. The lower Court has toact like a reasonable and prudent person for satisfying himself primafacie if there is sufficient ground for proceeding further. 21.In the disputed instrument it is clearly stated 'for NJFAgencies' and signed by 'proprietor/ protrietrix/ authorised signatory'. Further, the complainant in paragraph no.6 of the complaint hasspecifically stated as follows: "The a....