Madras High Court
E.K.Rajan vs R.Jagadessan on 26 April, 2021
1 Crl OP No.7155 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.7155 of 2021
E.K.Rajan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Jagadessan ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to
call for the records or the complaint in S.T.C.No.56 of 2020 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Anbuchezheiyan
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records or the complaint in S.T.C.No.56 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2.The petitioner is an accused in S.T.C.No.56 of 2020 facing trial
for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the complainant is an Advocate and as per
Section 49(1) C of the Advocates Act, the Advocate is barred from
having any business transaction or loan transaction with his client.
Further he relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in
(2018) 1 SCC 638 in the case of B.Sunitha Vs. State of Telengana.
Following the same, this Court also passed an order in Crl.O.P.No.1157
of 2020 dated 29.07.2020 in the case of Illakkia Raja Vs.
T.Umamaheswaran, wherein the alleged cheque was issued as security
for the loan borrowed by the petitioner. The respondent/complainant as
an Advocate had misused the cheque and had filed the case under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4.He further submitted that the petitioner had already negotiated
and settled the issue with the respondent. But the petitioner was unable
to mobilize the fund for settling the amount as per compromise. Then the
respondent/complainant told the petitioner that he will give the amount
as hand loan along with interest. As per the words of the
respondent/complainant the loan amount with interest of 2% per month
and got blank cheques and pronotes and also got the signature of the
petitioner in the blank papers as a security purpose. On 12.03.2019, the
respondent/complainant issued lawyer notice. Hence, the petition and
the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is to be quashed.
5.From the perusal of the complaint and the material produced, it
is an admitted fact that the petitioner/accused is a long term client of the
respondent/complainant. The petitioner is running a school and incurred
debt by purchasing some land and in order to meet out the said debt he
approached the respondent/complainant and requested him for a hand
loan of Rs.6,00,000/-, which was extended by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
respondent/complainant. In discharge of the said liability the petitioner
had issued a cheque No.000052 dated 05.01.2019 for a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, New Washermenpet Branch,
Chennai – 81. The respondent/complainant had presented the above
cheque and the same was dishonoured and returned for the reason
“Drawer's Signature Differs” and the same was intimated to the
respondent/complainant by the bank vide bank memo dated 29.01.2020.
On the other hand it is clearly admitted by the petitioner is that there is a
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was never sought
for a loan and the respondent had extended the loan for the petitioner,
thus, it has not in dispute.
6.From the perusal of the citation referred by the petitioner, it is
seen that the facts and circumstances of the above said case is completely
variance with the facts of this case. The cheques cited supra have been
obtained in expectation and for share in percentage of the extended
claim, which is not a case here. The relationship between the petitioner
and the respondent herein is not the same. The only contention is that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
respondent/complainant as an Advocate is barred from having any
business transaction or loan transaction with his client. Further, it clearly
shows that the petitioner with a clear designed manner had signed the
cheque, in such a manner that the cheque being was returned for variance
of signature, on the day of dishonour of the cheque, the petitioner had
sufficient balance of Rs.6,00,000/- to his credit. For the variance in
signature alone the cheque was returned.
7.In view of the same this Court finds that this Criminal Original
Petition needs to be dismissed and also directs the trial court to conclude
the trial, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
26.04.2021
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ah
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
ah
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvottiyur.
Crl.O.P.No.7155 of 2021
26.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
