Madras High Court
P.Geetha vs S.Premaleela on 30 June, 2023
CRL. OP No.28145 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL. OP No.28145 of 2022
P.Geetha : Petitioner
versus
S.Premaleela : Respondent
Petition filed under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call
for the records in CC No.325 of 2019 on the file of the Fast Track Court at
Magisterial Level, Coimbatore, and to quash the proceedings.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anandan
for M/s.Majestic Law Firm
For Respondent : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran
ORDER
The petitioner, who is accused in C.C.No.325 of 2019 facing trial on a
private complaint filed by the defacto complainant for offence under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has filed this quash petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL. OP No.28145 of 2022
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
purchased the subject property for a total sale consideration of Rs.99,36,000/-.
The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.75,86,000/- by way of cash and demand
draft, on various dates. Towards the balance amount of 23,50,000/-, three
cheques were given: two cheques for a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- each and one
cheque for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. In the sale deed, it has been clearly
mentioned that if the said cheques are not honoured, the sale deed would
become invalid. According to the petitioner, two cheques for a sum of Rs.7.75
lakh each, have not been honoured by the petitioner for the reason that the
respondent complainant had suppressed about the pendency of the civil suit in
O.S.No.1 of 2017, on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri,
between the respondent and one K.C.Sivaraman. Further, as per the agreement,
the respondent had agreed to fence the property and also to make an approach
road to the property. However, the same has not been done by the respondent.
The learned counsel further submitted that after the purchase and measurement
of property, it was found that the extent of the property was less than what was
mentioned in the sale deed. For these reasons, there is no legally enforceable
debt and the petitioner cannot make a claim based on the above cheques. The
petitioner had also replied to the statutory notice raising the above issues. Even
thereafter, the respondent has not done anything to address those issues. On
the other hand, the respondent had proceeded against the petitioner and filed
this complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL. OP No.28145 of 2022
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present case
has been filed in the year 2019 and for the past four years, the case has been
kept pending without any progress. He further submitted that the sale agreement
was entered on 15.12.2015. The civil suit pending between the respondent and
Sivaraman, in O.S.No.1/2017, ended in favour of the respondent, vide judgment
dated 25.02.2022. This suit was filed subsequent in the year 2017. The
petitioner, after purchasing the property, had mutated the revenue records in her
name. Now the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. She
has created lame excuses to deny the legally enforceable debt and has
deliberately failed to make the payments. The petitioner, in the notice, had
narrated the sequence, under what circumstances, the issuance of cheques was
made by her. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent disputes the
contention that there was pre-condition in the sale deed regarding fencing and
creation of approach road. Further, possession has been handed over to the
petitioner and she is in enjoyment of the property. Denying the lawful dues to the
respondent is not proper. He further submitted that the points raised herein are
disputable facts, which necessarily have to be decided during trial and not at this
stage of quashing the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL. OP No.28145 of 2022
4. Considering the submissions and perusal of materials, this Court finds
that the points raised by the petitioner are disputable facts, involving several
documents. There have been transactions between the petitioner and the
respondent from the year 2015 and subsequently, there have been other
developments. These facts could be decided only during trial. Whatever may be
the petitioner's defence, it can be raised during trial with relevant documents and
by way of cross examination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the suit
has not ended in favour of the respondent and it has been dismissed.
6. This Court is of the view that this fact could also be confronted to the
witnesses during trial.
7. For the above reasons, the original petition is dismissed. Since the
case in CC No.325 of 2019 is pending from the year 2019 without any progress,
the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that the submissions made by the parties is only for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL. OP No.28145 of 2022
limited purpose of disposal of the present original petition. The trial Court shall
decide the case before it on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the
observations made in this order.
30.06.2023
tar
To
The Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Coimbatore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL. OP No.28145 of 2022
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
(tar)
CRL. OP No.28145 of 2022
30.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
