Madras High Court
Muthu Vazhivittan vs Chidambaram on 28 March, 2022
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:28/03/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.2278 and 2279 of 2019
Muthu Vazhivittan : Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
Chidambaram : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CC No.19 of
2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court (ML), Thoothukudi and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.SP.Vijay Nivas
For Respondent : Mr.N.Pragalathan
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the case in CC No.19 of 2019 pending on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (ML),
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
2.The case of the respondent in brief:-
He lodged a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C against
this petitioner making the following allegations:- He and
the accused were known to each other. In the month of
February 2018, the accused approached him demanding Rs.
5,00,000/- as loan for the purpose of investing in a Solar
Power Company. The above said amount was transferred to
one Senthivel account, who was the common friend between
them. Again on 17/07/2018, the accused came to his house
and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and promised to repay the same
within a month. At that time, he handed over a signed
cheque drawn on Kamuthi State Bank of India for Rs.
7,00,000/-. The accused requested the complaint to wait
for one month for presentation of the cheque for
collection. As per the direction, that was presented for
payment on 20/09/2018, in the State Bank of India,
Thoothukudi. But that was returned dishonoured. After
complying statutory formalities, the complaint has been
filed stating this petitioner committed the offence under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case was
taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate (Magisterial
Level), Thoothukudi and assigned CC No.19 of 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition came to
be filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is only a
land broker and the above said amount, mentioned in the
complaint, was transferred only to Senthil Vel account for
purchasing the land in Survey Nos.194/7C, 195/14, 201/7,
203/18, 228/2A, 2B, 5, 8. The registration of the above
said land was also made on 09/09/2018. Thereafter, the
respondent came to know that the land was sold to him for
excessive amount. S,o he started to threaten the petitioner
to return amount for the purchase amount. Actually under
force and threat, the above said cheque was obtained. The
cheque was issued on condition that the above said property
should be registered in the name of the petitioner's name
on or before 08/08/2018, otherwise that can be cancelled.
Against the above said undertaking, the complaint is filed
to return the property. So, the cheque was also cancelled.
So the cheque has been issued only for security purpose and
not for discharging any liability. Simultaneous complaint
was filed before the Inspector of Police Town Police
Station, Thoothuudi, which was also registered in Crime No.
436 of 2018. That was challenged before this court and stay
was also granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
4.Heard both sides.
5.During the course of argument, it was submitted by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
complaint was filed, much after the expiry of the
limitation period. So according to the petitioner, the
legal notice was received, on 20/10/2018 and the complaint
was filed on 21/05/2019, which is beyond the period of
limitation. So on that ground, interim stay was granted
by this court. Finding that the copy of the complaint filed
by both parties contains different date of presentation,
the entire records have been called for from the trial
court.
6.Without going into the factual aspect, we can
straightaway go to the period limitation. The factual
aspect, that has been given by the petitioner cannot be
considered in this petition. Whether the cheque was issued
only as security for the registration of the sale deed in
favour of the de-facto complainant or it was obtained by
threat, coercion etc., can be a matter for consideration
during the course of trial. Originally, the copies of the
documents have been submitted by the trial court. Finding
that the original records were not submitted, the Registry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
was called for the original records, in pursuance of the
above said direction original records submitted.
7.From the court records, it is seen that it was
presented, on 30/11/2018 and on that date, the complainant
was present and the trial court directed the matter to be
listed on 14/12/2018 after checking the complaint. Again it
was called for and it was ordered to be posted on
04/01/2019. It was presented on 08/01/2019 and re-presented
on 25/01/2019 and taken cognizance on 15/02/2019 after the
scrutiny of the papers. So the original date of the
presentation I.e., 30/11/2018 must be taken into account
and not the date of cognizance of the offence. The legal
notice was received by the accused on 20/10/2018. Within a
month, it ought to have been presented before the concerned
court within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the
notice on 04/11/2018. From 04/11/2018, the complaint ought
to have been filed within thirty days, which also expired
on 04/12/2018. But from the above said facts, it is seen
that it has been presented well within the period of
limitation I.e., on 20/11/2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
8.The contention of the petitioner that it is barred
by limitation is not correct on record. In the judgment
cited by the petitioner, notice was issued on 03/04/2004
and it was received by the accused on 04/08/2004. The
complaint was filed on 31/05/2004, which is beyond 30 days
period with a delay of 7 days. No petition was filed for
condoning the delay. Straightaway, it was taken
cognizance. Only on that ground, the case was quashed. As
mentioned above, the date of presentation of the complaint
must be taken into account and not the cognizance of the
offence. So this ground is not available to the petitioner
and it is liable to be rejected.
9.In respect of the other contention with regard to
the legally enforceable liability, it cannot be a matter
for consideration in this petition. So on that ground also,
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10.In the result, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. However, considering the fact that the it is a
case of the 2019, there shall be a direction to the
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (ML), Thoothukudi to
expedite the trial process and complete the same, within a
period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
this order and the report the same the Registry.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28.03.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (ML),
Thoothukudi.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3872 of 2019
28/03/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
