9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010, the second accused in S.T.C.No.2936 of 2009 is the petitioner, seeking quashment of the summons issued in the above said S.T.C on taking cognizance for the dis-honoured of the cheque-in-issue of M/s.sripathy Fashions in which he is one of the partner. 3. In Crl.O.P.No.19988 of 2010, the third accused in S.T.C.No.2936 of 2009, Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur is the petitioner seeking the quash the private complaint filed in above S.T.C.No. in respect of the cheque issued by the A1 Partnership firm. 4. The complainant company is the partnership firm and A.Gopal and A.Ravi are partners of the said firm as per partnership deed dated 8.7.2005. One of the partner, A.Gopal had filed the above private complaint with authorization letter da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sole ground that though he is a partner with the second respondent firm/Leo Sales Corporation (arrayed as A1) however by deed of retirement deed on 01.01.2008, the petitioner herein on retirement from the partnership firm and the same fact was communicated to the other two partners which are arrayed as third and fourth respondent herein and also send a communication through letter on 24.07.2009 and since the petitioner has retired from the partnership as early as on 01.01.2008, the private complaint which was emerged from cheque dated 25.07.2009 and 26.08.2008, he cannot be coupled with the criminal liability and seeks the quashment of the private complaint in so far as third accused is concerned. 8. In Crl.O.P.No.16389 of 2010 by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above said I.P.No.121 of 2009 before the official assignee has been furnished in the additional typed set of papers. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the date of the filing of the private complaint by the first defendant/complainant before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirupur Court on the very same date, this petitioner herein has been adjudged as insolvent and hence, criminal proceedings against the said person cannot be carried on for the non-payment of the amount covered under the cheque, since, he has entitled to protection under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. 13. This Court has given in anxious consideration for the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is the basic jurispruden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the amount of money standing to credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (v) the drawer of such chequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the protection contemplated under the Section 29 and 31 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act does not loom large and protect the petitioner herein.Since, after the amendment as stated above dishonor of cheque has became a criminal liability and a similar view on a different analysis is taken by this Court in decision reported 1999 criminal law journal (B.Kannan v.B.C.Santhanam) I am also fortify by the said decision and in this view of the matter I am of the considered view that though the petitioner herein be declared has "insolvent" under the "Presidency Towns Insolvency Act". However, it does not cloth him with immunity from criminal prosecution for dishonour of cheque and in this view of the matter this petition is devoid of merits an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into writing by way of retirement deed dated 01.01.2008. The said deed of retirement is also un-registered one. 21. This Court has given its anxious consideration for the said contention and also perused the document of deed of retirement. The cheque-in-issue relating dated 25.07.2009 and 26.08.2009. According to the petitioner herein he has retired from the partnership firm on 01.01.2008 itself admittedly,the deed of the partnership was not registered one under the Indian Partnership Act, the retiring partner has to issue a statutory notice under Section 32 sub clause(2) to its notice of the retirement and made, manner and method of issuance a public notice is enshrined under Section 72 of the Indian Partnership Act. 22. The learned p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
