Madras High Court
M/S.Sunbam Technologies vs M/S.Sivagami Metal Industries on 23 June, 2023
CRL.O.P.No.30518 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.30518 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.18675 of 2022
1.M/s.Sunbam Technologies,
Rep. by its Partner
Sultan
2.Sultan,
Partner,
M/s.Sunbam Technologies ... Petitioners/Accused
Versus
M/s.Sivagami Metal Industries,
Having company at
No.44, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Kakkalur,
Thiruvallur – 602 003
Rep. by its Proprietor
R.Velumani ...Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for the records in S.T.C.No.104 of 2022 on the
file of Fast Track Court of Cheque Cases Magistrate Level at Thiruvallur and
quash the same.
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.30518 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan
For Respondent : Ms.K.Meena
for Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.104
of 2022 pending on the file of Fast Track Court of Cheque Cases Magistrate
Level at Thiruvallur.
2. This Court, on 20.06.2023, had passed the following order:
“The petitioner/accused in S.T.C.No.104 of 2022 on a private
complaint filed by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act which is pending trial on the file of the
Fast Track Court of Cheque Cases Magistrate Level at Thiruvallur,
filed this quash petition.
2.The petitioner primarily raised a point that the cheque in this
case is for a sum of Rs.9,08,399/-, but the complaint has been filed by
the respondent/complainant claiming that the petitioner is due only to
a sum of Rs.7,13,977/-. He further submitted that in the statutory
notice the cheque amount has not been demanded and only a lesser
amount of Rs.7,13,977/- is made. He would further submit that the
petitioner had given a detailed reply stating that it was a business
transaction, a cheque which was given as security had been misused
by the respondent and a case has been foisted against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.30518 of 2022
He further submitted that in the reply in more than one place the
petitioner had categorically stated that the cheque was given only for a
security purpose which has not been disputed by the respondent by
sending a rejoinder. Further, the reply notice has been cited as a
document to the complaint. Assailing these points, the learned
counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Angu Parameswari Textiles (P) Ltd. and others
vs. Sir Rajam & Co. reported in 2001 SCC Online Mad 922 and
submitted that this Court on the ground that a cheque which has been
retained by way of security cannot be used to prosecute against the
drawer of the cheque for the reason that it got dishonoured when there
is a specific direction by the petitioner that only after confirming from
the petitioner any cheque to be deposited.
3.Ms.K.Meena, learned counsel representing Mr.K.R.Ramesh
Kumar appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner and
the respondent were having business relationship. She would submit
that the respondent/complainant supplied Aluminium Alloy Ingot to
the petitioner and a cheque was issued for the invoice dated
14.02.2022 for a sum of Rs.9,08,399/-. The petitioner in the business
dealing paid some amount which was given credit to his account.
Thereafter, in the business transaction the petitioner was due to a sum
of Rs.13,13,977/-. The petitioner later paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
leaving balance of Rs.7,13,977/-, giving credit to the payments made
the respondent called upon the petitioner to honour the cheque, the
petitioner avoided the same and thereafter, having left with no other
option, the cheque was presented for payment to discharge the liability
of the petitioner to an extent of Rs.7,13,977/-. She further submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.30518 of 2022
that the cheque was presented for payment on 26.05.2022 which was
returned with an endorsement 'Payment Stopped by the Drawer' and
thereafter, statutory notice was issued. The petitioner with a false
allegation replied to the statutory notice as though cheque was given
as security but at no point of time cheque was received from the
petitioner as security. She further submitted that this Court as well as
the Apex Court have time and again held that as regards the
Negotiable Instruments Act, there is no question of issuance of cheque
as security. Learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon the
decisions of this Court in the case of N.Jeyachandran vs. A.Ashik Ali
reported in MANU/TN/1087/2022 and in the case of Nandhi Dhall
Mills and Others vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. reported in 2022
SCC Online Mad 342.
4.At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
small accommodation to make his reply and also to ascertain from the
petitioner as to whether there is any possibility of settlement.
5.Post the matter on 23.06.2023 under the caption 'For
Orders'.”
3. In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed by this
Court on 20.06.2023, today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the
learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
petition. Though the learned counsel sought time to make his reply and also
to find out whether there is any possibility of settlement, today, after coming
to know that the petition is likely to be dismissed, he is not pressing this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.30518 of 2022
petition. He has also made an endorsement in the petition to that effect.
4. In view of the submission and endorsement made by the learned
counsel for petitioner, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as not
pressed.
5. Finding that the petitioners are adopting dilatory tactics, the trial
Court is directed to give preference and proceed with the trial without any
delay. If the trial Court finds that the petitioners are adopting dilatory tactics,
the trial Court shall take coercive action against the accused persons and
conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
23.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.30518 of 2022
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
To
1.The Fast Track Court of Cheque Cases Magistrate Level
Thiruvallur.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.30518 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.No.18675 of 2022
23.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
