Madras High Court
Mr.S.Logesh vs Mr.S.Ramesh on 15 November, 2024
Crl.O.P.No.24758 of 2024 in
Crl.A.SR.No.31918 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.24758 of 2024
in
Crl.A.SR.No.31918 of 2024
Mr.S.Logesh, ...Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
Mr.S.Ramesh ...Respondent/Respondent
Prayer in Crl.O.P: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378 (4) of
Criminal Procedure Code, to grant Special Leave to file the appeal as against
the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.61 of 2023, dated 10.04.2024 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate level), Alandur.
Prayer in Appeal: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 to allow the appeal and set aside the acquittal order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur,
Chengalpattu District in C.C.No.61/2023 dated 10.04.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manoharan
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24758 of 2024 in
The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondent for
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in
C.C.No.61 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court,
Alandur, Chengalpattu District. The Trial Court, by Judgment, dated
10.04.2024 dismissed the complaint against which the present Criminal
Original Petition for granting leave.
2. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent had borrowed a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from the petitioner and promised to
return the same and had issued a pronote towards discharge of the said loan
and had issued a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank,
which was dishonoured. The Trial Court, on the basis of Exs. D1 to D4,
found that the impugned cheque was issued from an account maintained by
the wife, Mrs.Renuka, of the accused, who is the proprietor of Jayam
Enterprises, and therefore, the accused cannot be made liable for the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since it was not issued
from an account maintained by him.
3. Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24758 of 2024 in
however, submit that the accused had not denied his signature in the cheque
and also the fact that he had handed over the cheque to the petitioner.
4. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881, would be made
out only when any cheque is drawn by the accused person on an account
maintained by him. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the Judgment
of acquittal by the trial Court, which had found that the cheque was not
drawn on an account maintained by the respondent. However, since the
signature in the cheque has not been denied by the respondent, it is open to
the petitioner to pursue any action in accordance with law for the alleged
deception by the accused/respondent.
5.With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed and Crl.A.SR.No.31918 of 2024 stands rejected at the SR stage
itself.
15.11.2024
dk
SUNDER MOHAN., J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.24758 of 2024 in
dk
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court, Alandur,
Chengalpattu District.
in
15.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
