Madras High Court
B.Venugopal vs S.Narayanan on 12 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14124 and 14126 of 2022
B.Venugopal ... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Narayanan ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the same in
C.C.No.4272 of 2019 pending in the trial court of Vth FTC Metropolitan
Court, Saitapet, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.T.Arunan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the
records in C.C.No.4272 of 2019 pending on the file of the Metropolitan
Magistrate Fast Track Court III, Saidapet, Chennai and to quash the
same.
2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the prosecution is that the
petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs
only) from the respondent for family commitments. In order to repay the
same, he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- dated 07.05.2019
to HDFC Bank, ITC Centre, 759, Mount Road, Chennai towards the
charge of his liability. He also promised to honour the same on
presentation. In fact, the respondent before depositing the said cheque,
informed to the petitioner and the petitioner had also assured that there
are sufficient funds in the account and it may be presented. Accordingly,
the respondent presented the cheque for collection and the same was
returned for dishonour for the reason (Non CTS Cheque) on 03.06.2019.
Immediately, the accused was caused notice and a complaint was lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner used to visit abroad frequently and as such he had handed over
the cheques to his wife for various purposes. All the cheques were CTS
cheques and old cheques cannot be used now. On receipt of the legal
notice, the petitioner had sent a detailed reply notice denying all the
allegations made in the notice. He further submitted that the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
never borrowed such huge amount from the respondent since he had no
need, to borrow any money from the respondent herein. The respondent
was acquainted with the petitioner's family. When the petitioner's wife
was alive, the respondent had taken away the cheque and presented the
same after nine years that too after the demise of the petitioner's wife.
Further, the cheque was returned on the ground that Non CTS Cheque.
Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act did not attract as against the petitioner.
4. Heard.
5. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act revealed
that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- and in order to
repay the same he had issued a cheque. However, it was returned
dishonour for the reason that Non CTS Cheque. Admittedly, even till
now, the account is very much alive. Even assuming that the case of the
petitioner is true that the alleged cheque was stolen by the respondent, the
petitioner never lodged any complaint as against the respondent. That
apart, the petitioner did not take any steps to hand over the old cheques
viz, Non CTS Cheque to the concerned Bank. It would show that after
expiry of those cheques, in order to cheat the respondent, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
issued Non CTS Cheque to the respondent towards repayment of loan
availed by him. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner are mixed
question of facts and it can be considered only during the Trial in the
Trial Court by examining the witnesses.
6. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in this petition and is
liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and he
shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application.
However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of
furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment. The Trial Court is directed
to complete the trial proceedings in C.C.No.4272 of 2019, on the file of
the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court III, Saidapet, Chennai,
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
mn/gd
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
To
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court III, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.21832 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14124 and 14126 of 2022
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
