Madras High Court
Santhanalakshmi vs Sathya on 11 September, 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9381 & 9380 of 2024
Santhanalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
Sathya ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records relating to STC.No.539 of 2022 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai and to quash the said proceedings
as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Prabha
For Mr.D.Rameshkumar
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking orders to quash the case in STC.No.539 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai.
1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024
2.It is evident from the records that the respondent / complainant has filed private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner, for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act and that the learned Magistrate after completing necessary formalities, has taken the complaint on file in STC.No.539 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai.
3.The case of the respondent is that on10.10.2022, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and issued a cheque dated 28.10.2022, that on 29.10.2022, the respondent presented the said cheque for collection and the same was returned on 02.11.2022, for the reason, “Not CTS Cheque”, that on 11.11.2022 the respondent issued a legal notice and that since the petitioner has not complied with notice demand the present complaint came to be filed.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the cheque was not returned for want of sufficient amount and the same was returned only for the reason “Non CTS Cheque” and as such, question of invoking Section 138 NI Act does not arise at all. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024
5.Even in the complaint, the respondent has specifically alleged that the petitioner has issued Non CTS Cheque only to cheat the defacto complainant. The petitioner has not assigned any other reason and it is not the case of the petitioner that he has sufficient balance in his Bank Account, at the time of alleged return. Though the cheque was returned as “Non CTS Cheque”, there is no bar or prohibition for preferring complaint. The petitioner has not raised any other reason or ground to impugn the complaint.
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has enumerated 7 categories of cases, where the power can be exercised under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same are extracted hereunder:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024 power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024 constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
1. where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 2. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024
7.In Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2019 (18) SCC 191, the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is settled law that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wide but at the same time, the same is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself.
8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (3) Crimes 247 has stated that, that Court in catena of decisions has observed that the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial and that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR/complaint and prima facie materials, if any, requiring no proof and at such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR/complaint and materials relied on. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024
9.A cursory perusal of the private complaint and the document produced would make it clear that there existed a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner and the grounds now raised by the petitioner are all matter for trial and the same cannot be canvassed before this Court in the present proceedings.
10.Considering the above and also taking note of the fact that this is not a fit case to quash the private complaint in STC.No.539 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai against the petitioner, this Court concludes that this petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
11.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gns
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
gns Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14999 of 2024 11.09.2024 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis