Madras High Court
S. Priyadarshini vs V.Thangavel on 19 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.24894 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
CRL.O.P.No. 24894 of 2016
and Crl.MP.No. 12032 of 2016
S. Priyadarshini .. Petitioner
Versus
V.Thangavel .. Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the records in STC.No.52 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Salem and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.V.Sairam
For Respondent : No Appearance
Notice Served - Name Printed
----
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.52 of 2016 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24894 of 2016
2. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C., against the petitioner/accused for an alleged offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the
'NI Act') before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.
3. The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused
borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant. It is the
further case of the respondent/complainant that the petitioner/accused issued a
cheque bearing No.204711, dated 11.01.2013 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- drawn
on IDBI Bank, Salem-7 and when the cheque was presented for encashment by the
respondent/complainant through his banker viz., M/s. Karur Vysya Bank, Salem-4,
which was dishonoured for the reason ''Payment Stopped". Therefore, the
respondent/complainant issued a notice dated 16.05.2013 to the petitioner/accused
and the petitioner after receiving the said notice, the petitioner/accused has not sent
any reply to the complainant. Therefore, the respondent/complainant filed a
private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Salem, for an alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act,
1881.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24894 of 2016
4. Mr.V.Sairam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended
that since the cheque was presented before the bank beyond the validity period of
three months, the impugned complaint lodged against the petitioner is liable to be
quashed.
5. Though notice has been served on the respondent and his name is printed
in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of the respondent.
6. This Court is of the view that all the grounds can be raised before the trial
Court and there is no merit in the quash petition.
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, may be
dispensed with. He would also seeks that the time frame may be fixed to the trial
Court to complete the trial.
8. Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioner before the
trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that the petitioner shall be present
on the first day of appearance, on the date fixed for receiving the copies, initial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24894 of 2016
questioning, reply to charges and questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at
the time of passing judgment and whenever insisted upon by the trial court.
9. Further, the petitioner is directed to give an undertaking in the form of
affidavit that she will be duly represented by a counsel on all hearing dates and
that the Counsel representing her will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on
the same day she is examined in chief. The petitioner shall not dispute the identity
of the witnesses. The petitioner shall appear before the Court in the event of her
presence is insisted by the trial judge for the purpose of identification. If the
petitioner adopts any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for her
appearance and deal with the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of
Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh,
reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667. The learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Salem, is
directed to complete the trial in S.T.C.No.52 of 2016, as expeditiously as possible
and pass final order, preferably, within a period of Six Months, from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24894 of 2016
8. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Original
Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also
closed.
19.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
msm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24894 of 2016
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
msm
CRL.O.P.No. 24894 of 2016
and Crl.MP.No. 12032 of 2016
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
