S.Pandian vs S.Nithiya Bala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4483 Mad

                                                                         CRL.A.(MD).No.158 of 2022


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 08.03.2022

                                                   CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                         CRL.A.(MD).No.158 of 2022


                     S.Pandian                           ... Appellant/Complainant


                                                   Vs.


                     S.Nithiya Bala                      ... Respondent/Accused


                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C
                     to call for the records in S.T.C.No.25 of 2017, dated 23.03.2021 on
                     the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
                     (Magisterial Level), Theni and to set aside the same.


                                   For Appellant         : Mr.F.Deepak




                    1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          CRL.A.(MD).No.158 of 2022




                                                        JUDGMENT

This Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment passed

in S.T.C.No.25 of 2017, dated 23.03.2021 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Theni,

thereby dismissing the complaint lodged by the appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act.

2.The case of the appellant is that the husband of the

respondent and the appellant are good friends. The respondent

approached the complainant for borrowal of loan at Rs.5,00,000/-

for her family urgency. In order to discharge the said loan, she

issued cheque, dated 24.08.2016 drawn on State Bank of India, PC

Patti Branch. It was presented for collection and the same was

returned 'dishonoured' for the reason that the 'payment stopped by

the drawer'. After causing legal statutory notice as contemplated

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant

lodged the complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by

the trial Court in S.T.C.No.25 of 2017.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.158 of 2022

3.On the side of the appellant, he himself was examined as

P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and on the side of the respondent,

D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.6 were marked.

4.The trial Court, after perusing the oral and documentary

evidences, dismissed the complaint for the reason that alleged

cheque was not issued for the legally enforceable debt.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

perused the entire materials available on record.

6.On a perusal of the records revealed that the respondent

issued notice to her banker to stop payment in respect of the

alleged cheque which was marked as Ex.P.1. The case of the

respondent is that her husband borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- for

which, the appellant required a cheque from one Government

employee and as such, the respondent issued the alleged signed

blank cheque, dated 24.08.2016. Subsequently, it was filled up by

the appellant and presented for collection for a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- as if the respondent borrowed loan. That apart, the

hand loan was borrowed by the respondent on 24.08.2016 and on

the same day, the respondent issued cheque for the said sum.

Within a period of two months, it was presented for collection. On

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.158 of 2022

the side of the respondent, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and

clearly rebutted the case of the appellant and as such, the appellant

is duty bound to prove the reverse burden that the alleged cheque

was issued for legally enforceable debt or loan on the alleged debt.

Whereas, the appellant failed to prove the reverse burden. Further,

the respondent issued letter to her banker to stop payment for the

alleged cheque for the reason that she never issued any cheque for

any legally enforceable debt in favour of the appellant. Further,

D.W.4 deposed that the appellant has filed another case in S.T.C.No.

626 of 2017 as against one Venkatesan on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, as if he had lent loan to him in

the year 2016. Therefore, the Court below rightly acquitted the

respondent and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this Court finds no

infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

08.03.2022

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes ps

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.158 of 2022

Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To

The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Theni.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.158 of 2022

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ps

CRL.A.(MD).No.158 of 2022

08.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis