9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presented before the State Bank of India, Balaji Nagar, Chennai, on 7.2.2014 and the said cheque was returned with remarks of "Funds insufficient" on 9.2.2014. In spite of the said cheque being returned, the petitioner herein has not paid the aforesaid amount. Hence, the defacto-complainant filed a petition in C.C. No. 4965 of 2014 under Section 138 of N.I. Act, before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the case has been transferred to the III Fast Track Court, Saidapet, Chennai. after establishment of the Fast Track Court. In view of the aforesaid complaint against the petitioner, the petitioner herein has filed the present Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C. No. 4965 of 2014 pending on the file of III FTC, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said cheque was in the name of VT Education, wherein the case was filed against the VT Man Power Agency. Hence, the petitioner has not issued the said cheque and had no role played in the transaction with the defacto-complainant/respondent herein. 4. It has further been submitted that as per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 24.02.2014 through her counsel calling upon the accused for the payment of the said amount due on the dishonoured cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. In the event of failure of the accused to pay the said amount within the stipulated time, the de-facto complainant has filed the complaint in C.C. No. 4965 of 2014 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same has been transferred to III-FTC, Saidapet after establishment of Fast Track Court. 7. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent as well as perused the material available on records. 8. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the defacto complainant was working as Assistant General Manager at VT Manpower Consultancy Services Private Limited, from 14.7.2010 and her salary was Rs. 35,000/- per month. The general policies, leave and permission policies, accounts policies, salary policies, amendment, agreement of employment in respect of the VT Manpower Consultancy Services Private Limited have been issued to the defacto-complainant. As per clause 19 (Arbitration) of the Agreement of Employment of VT Manpower Consultancy Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Manager, VT Manpower Consultancy Services Private Limited, stating that Chamundeeswari/respondent herein is in possession of cheque not given either by the Company-VT Manpower Consultancy Services Private Limited or VT Educational Institutions Pvt. Ltd. and those cheques were taken away by her without the consent or authorization of the Company. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended r/w Section 357 of Cr.P.C. in C.C. No. 4965 of 2014 before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 11. While perusing the records, it could be seen that the defacto complainant was working as an employee in the said Company and 2nd accused Mr. Saravanan General Manager of the firm in his personal capacity issued a cheque for liability as the arrears of salary to be paid to the defacto-complainant but the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed against VT Manpower Consultancy Services Private Limited. 12. It could also be seen that there are allegations and counter allegations against each parties and as per clause 19 (Arbitration) of the Agreement of Employment of VT Manpower Consultancy Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for." 15. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl. A. No. 1817 of 2019 in the case of M. Jayanthi Vs. K.R. Meenakshi & anr., as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
