Madras High Court
B.Venugopal vs S.Narayanan on 12 September, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14124 and 14126 of 2022
B.Venugopal ... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Narayanan ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the same in
C.C.No.4272 of 2019 pending in the trial court of Vth FTC Metropolitan
Court, Saitapet, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.T.Arunan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the records in C.C.No.4272 of 2019 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court III, Saidapet, Chennai and to quash the same.
2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 6 Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022 respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) from the respondent for family commitments. In order to repay the same, he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- dated 07.05.2019 to HDFC Bank, ITC Centre, 759, Mount Road, Chennai towards the charge of his liability. He also promised to honour the same on presentation. In fact, the respondent before depositing the said cheque, informed to the petitioner and the petitioner had also assured that there are sufficient funds in the account and it may be presented. Accordingly, the respondent presented the cheque for collection and the same was returned for dishonour for the reason (Non CTS Cheque) on 03.06.2019. Immediately, the accused was caused notice and a complaint was lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner used to visit abroad frequently and as such he had handed over the cheques to his wife for various purposes. All the cheques were CTS cheques and old cheques cannot be used now. On receipt of the legal notice, the petitioner had sent a detailed reply notice denying all the allegations made in the notice. He further submitted that the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 6 Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022 never borrowed such huge amount from the respondent since he had no need, to borrow any money from the respondent herein. The respondent was acquainted with the petitioner's family. When the petitioner's wife was alive, the respondent had taken away the cheque and presented the same after nine years that too after the demise of the petitioner's wife. Further, the cheque was returned on the ground that Non CTS Cheque. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not attract as against the petitioner.
4. Heard.
5. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act revealed that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- and in order to repay the same he had issued a cheque. However, it was returned dishonour for the reason that Non CTS Cheque. Admittedly, even till now, the account is very much alive. Even assuming that the case of the petitioner is true that the alleged cheque was stolen by the respondent, the petitioner never lodged any complaint as against the respondent. That apart, the petitioner did not take any steps to hand over the old cheques viz, Non CTS Cheque to the concerned Bank. It would show that after expiry of those cheques, in order to cheat the respondent, the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 6 Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022 issued Non CTS Cheque to the respondent towards repayment of loan availed by him. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it can be considered only during the Trial in the Trial Court by examining the witnesses.
6. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in this petition and is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial proceedings in C.C.No.4272 of 2019, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court III, Saidapet, Chennai, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn/gd
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
To
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court III, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos.14124 and 14126 of 2022 12.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 6