V.M. Reji v. Selvan alias Selvaraj and State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- B. Sudheendra Kumar
- Judgment Date
- 2020-12-04
- Court Decision / Holding
- Crl.MC No.3797 of 2020 (D) stands dismissed. If the petitioner surrenders before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the court shall consider and dispose of the bail application in accordance with law, preferably on the date of filing of the bail application.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- V.M.Reji
Respondents
- Selvan alias Selvaraj
- State of Kerala rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sajan Varghese K.
- • Liju M.P.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Synopsis & Summary
V.M. Reji, the petitioner in Crl.MC.No.3797 of 2020 (D), challenges Annexure A, the complaint in ST 259/2016, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the ground that the payee being a proprietary concern renders the complaint non-maintainable when filed by the proprietor. The cheque, as per Annexure-C, was drawn in favour of M/s Mahalakshmi Finance. Annexure-A shows the complaint was filed by the proprietor of M/s Mahalakshmi Finance, a proprietary concern, thus raising the issue of maintainability. The petitioner argued that the complaint cannot be maintained since the payee is a proprietary concern and the complaint should be brought by the proprietor in his personal capacity or by the proprietary concern through its sole proprietor or by the proprietor’s attorney under a Power of Attorney. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Sankar Finance & Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2008(4) KHC 352) which held that a complaint by a proprietary payee is maintainable under three forms. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended otherwise, but the court found that Annexure-A complaint was perfectly maintainable in law, distinguishing the present argument. Consequently, the court dismissed the Crl.MC but directed that if the petitioner surrenders within three weeks and applies for regular bail, the bail application should be considered expeditiously, preferably on the date of filing.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Proprietary payee doctrine: where the payee is a proprietary concern, the complaint can be filed by (i) the proprietor describing himself as the sole proprietor; (ii) the proprietary concern described as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; or (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by an attorney under a Power of Attorney executed by the sole proprietor.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that since the cheque was drawn in favour of M/s Mahalakshmi Finance, a proprietary concern, the complaint filed by the proprietor is not maintainable. Annexure-C shows the cheque was issued to M/s Mahalakshmi Finance. Annexure-A indicates the complaint was filed by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, rendering Annexure-A complaint potentially defective; the maintainability hinges on the proprietary-status doctrine. Relying on the Supreme Court in Sankar Finance & Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the petition seeks quashing of Annexure-A and the proceedings in ST 259/2016.
Contentions of Respondents
The State/Respondents argue that the complaint is perfectly maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sankar Finance & Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008(4) KHC 352) holds that a payee who is a proprietary concern may be complaint by the proprietor, by the proprietary concern through its proprietor, or by the proprietor or proprietary concern by POA, and Annexure-A is maintained accordingly. The court should not quash the complaint.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s.Sankar Finance & Investments v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others | 2008(4) KHC 352 | Positive | Cited to support the maintainability principle for a payee who is a proprietary concern; the complaint may be filed by the proprietor or by the proprietary concern through the proprietor, or by attorney under POA. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against V.M. Reji v. Selvan alias Selvaraj and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.