Shri P Rajaseksharan vs. Hettich INDIA PVT LTD
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shri P. Rajasekharan, sought to quash a complaint case filed by Hettich India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the summoning order dated January 24, 2020. The petitioner was impleaded as accused No. 2, identified as the proprietor of M/s Victoria Agencies. The petitioner contended he was not the proprietor, but his son was, and provided a bank certificate from Karur Vysya Bank showing the account of M/s Victoria Agencies was closed on February 28, 2022, with Mr. Parthi R (PAN No. BGHPP3310A) as the sole proprietor. A GST Registration Certificate also listed Rajashekharan Parthi as the legal name for M/s Victoria Agencies. The respondent argued the petitioner was rightly summoned, as the cheque was issued on his behalf and signed by R. Parthi, and the proprietorship issue should be decided at trial.
Held
The Court held that it found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The reasoning was based on the conflicting identities presented by the petitioner himself. The petitioner's Aadhar Card showed his name as 'Rajasekharan', his PAN Card as 'A.S. Rajasekharan', and he swore an affidavit with the identity 'P. Rajshekharan'. Given these multiple names/identities on record, the Court declined to quash the summoning order. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner presents multiple inconsistent identities, the court will not intervene at the pre-trial stage in a criminal complaint, allowing the matter to proceed to trial. The petitioner was granted liberty to establish before the Trial Court whether he is indeed the proprietor of M/s Victoria Agencies. The petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, Shri P. Rajasekharan, is the proprietor of M/s Victoria Agencies, thereby making him liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the dishonor of a cheque issued by the firm? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he is not the proprietor of M/s Victoria Agencies and that his son is the actual proprietor. He relied on a bank certificate indicating Mr. Parthi R as the sole proprietor and a GST registration certificate where the legal name is Rajashekharan Parthi, asserting he does not use the name 'Parthi'. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner was correctly summoned as accused No. 2. They pointed to the subject cheque, which was issued on the petitioner's behalf and signed by R. Parthi, arguing that the question of proprietorship should be determined during the trial.
Sections Cited
Section 138, Section 141
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2024
By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint Case No. 930/2020 titled ‘Hettich India Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Victoria Agencies’ pending before Ld. M.M. (NI Act), South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi as well as the summoning order dated 24.01.2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the underlying complaint has been preferred by the respondent under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act, wherein the petitioner has been impleaded as accused No.2 on the ground that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Victoria Agencies. He submits that the aforesaid assertion is false, as the petitioner has no concern with M/s Victoria Agencies and that its proprietor is actually the petitioner’s son. In support of his contention, he has placed This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 12:07:34
reliance on a bank certificate dated 04.04.2022 issued by Karur Vysya Bank as per which, the account maintained by M/s Victoria Agency with them was closed on 28.02.2022. The certificate further states that as per the records, one Mr. Parthi R having PAN No. BGHPP3310A was the sole proprietor of M/s Victoria Agencies. The second document relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is a GST Registration Certificate as per which, the trade name of proprietorship firm is M/s Victoria Agencies and the legal name is Rajashekharan Parthi. The petitioner claims that he does not use the word ‘Parthi’ in his name. An additional affidavit, in this regard, has also been placed on record.
Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, has defended the impugned order by contending that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the Trial Court. He has referred to the subject cheque, copy of which has been placed on record, to state that it was issued on his behalf and that it was signed by one R. Parthi. He submits that as to whether the petitioner is the proprietor or not, would have to be tested during the course of trial.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the documents placed on record.
It is pertinent to note that petitioner has relied upon his Aadhar Card, wherein his name is mentioned as ‘Rajasekharan’ whereas in his PAN Card, his name is mentioned as ‘A.S. Rajasekharan’. The petition is accompanied by an affidavit, wherein petitioner has sworn the affidavit with the identity of ‘P. Rajshekharan’. Considering that multiple names/identities of the petitioner have come on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioner shall be liberty to establish This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 12:07:34
before the Trial Court whether he is proprietor of M/s Victoria Agencies or not.
Petition is dismissed alongwith miscellaneous application.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 16, 2024 ga
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 12:07:34
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.