Madras High Court
Dr.Venkata Ramesh Para vs Dr.Pruthvinath Kancherla on 24 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.5012 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.5012 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No.3240 of 2025
Dr.Venkata Ramesh Para ... Petitioner
Vs
Dr.Pruthvinath Kancherla
S/o.Dr.Ravindranath Kancherla
Represented by Power Agent J.Raja ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S., to call for the records and to set aside the order
passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.77406 of 2024 in C.C.No.2308 of
2021 dated 22.01.2025 on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate at
Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Madala Narasinga Rao
For Respondent : Mr.M.Palanivel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:03 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.5012 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated
22.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.77406 of 2024 in C.C.No.2308 of 2021 on the
file of the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai, thereby
allowing the petition filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 311
of Cr.P.C. for production of the bank account of the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act' for short). While the
trial was pending, the respondent, who is the complainant, filed a petition
under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for production
of the statement of account of the petitioner during the period from
15.12.2020 to 30.01.2021 by issuing summons to the Branch Manager of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:03 pm )
the petitioner's Bank for examining and eliciting that the petitioner was not
having sufficient amount in his Bank Account for the relevant period, and
the same was allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even
the Trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance under Section 138 of the
NI Act, since the account of the petitioner was blocked. Therefore, the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is not at all attracted. In support of
his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kusum
Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. and others,
reported in (2000) 2 SCC 745. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India held that in order to attract the offence under Section 138 of the NI
Act, a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him
in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from
out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability. Insofar as
the petitioner's account is concerned, it was already blocked, and as such, no
offence is made out under Section 138 of the NI Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:03 pm )
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
petitioner had already filed a quash petition on the very same ground before
this Court, and the same was dismissed by this Court.
6. While the trial was pending, the respondent filed a petition
under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 311 of Cr.P.C. After allowing
the said petition, the Bank Manager of the petitioner also produced the
statement of account, which is yet to be marked through PW.1. Therefore,
absolutely no prejudice would be caused if the statement of account of the
petitioner is marked through PW.1.
7. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality
in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition is dismissed. However, 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. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
24.03.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation/Yes/No
kv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:03 pm )
To
1. The XXV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:03 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
24.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 03:47:03 pm )
