Madras High Court
Lavanya vs P.S.Rengaraj on 26 March, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Crl.A(MD)No.237 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :26.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.A(MD)No.237 of 2025
Lavanya ... Appellant
Vs
P.S.Rengaraj ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C, to call
for the records relating to the impugned judgment, dated 02.01.2018
passed in STC No.251 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Sankarankovil and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Mahadevan
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ranjith Raja
JUDGMENT
The appellant has lodged a complaint as against the
respondent herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankaran
Kovil, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was
taken on file in STC No.251 of 2008 and was tried as against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 11:51:59 am )
respondent. In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, by its Judgment,
dated 02.01.2018 has dismissed the complaint that the complainant has
not proved his case that there was any legally enforceable debt for the
accused towards the complainant. As against the judgment of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankaran Kovil, in STC No.251 of 2008,
dated 02.01.2018, this Criminal Appeal is filed by the complainant.
2.The case of the complainant is that the complainant and the
respondent/accused are well known to each other. On 07.09.2007, the
respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant
and in discharge of the liability, he has issued a cheque on 09.12.2007
and when the same was presented for collection, it was returned as
‘exceeds arrangement’. Therefore, the complainant has issued a legal
notice on 12.01.2008, for which, the respondent has also sent a reply
notice on 21.01.2008. Thereafter, the complainant has instituted the
proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
3.Before the trial Court, this appellant/complainant was
examined as PW 1 and on her side, seven documents have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 11:51:59 am )
marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the respondent/accused, three
witnesses have been examined as DWs1 to 3 and four documents have
been marked as Exs.D1 to D4. In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court
has found that the accused has made out a case that there was a
transaction between him and the husband of the complainant and the
blank cheque given by the respondent to the complainant's husband,
was misused by the complainant and applying the ratio of
preponderance of probability that there was no legally enforceable
debt as against the respondent, the complaint filed by the appellant was
rejected.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the Instrument has not been denied by the respondent. The
accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant on
07.09.2007 and in discharge of the same, he has issued a cheque
Ex.P.1 on 18.12.2007. This Cheque was presented for collection on
22.12.2007, however, it was returned as insufficient funds. Therefore,
the complainant has issued a legal notice on 12.01.2008, for which, a
reply notice was also issued on 21.01.2008. Thereafter, the complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 11:51:59 am )
was presented on 03.02.2008. According to him, once the cheque and
the signature found in the cheque were not disputed, then the
presumption under section 139 is in favour of the complainant and
thereby, the presumption has been established in this case. However,
without considering the materials and the evidence, the trial Court has
simply rejected the complaint of the complainant. He further submits
that the source of income for the complainant need not be established
before the trial Court when the signature in Ex.P1/cheque was
admitted by the accused.
4.1.The learned counsel further submits that since the
complainant's husband was running a textile shop, the complainant is
having sufficient money and therefore, the trial Court has committed
an error in observing that there is no source of income for the
complainant to lend a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused. He also
submits that the complaint lodged by the respondent as against this
appellant was only on 03.02.2008 after the receipt of notice dated
12.01.2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 11:51:59 am )
5.The learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits
that the respondent has borrowed money from the husband of the
complainant, who was also examined as DW2 and that amount was
also settled by the respondent with a balance amount of Rs.35,000/-.
He further submits that while borrowing the money, he has also parted
with two blank cheques and when he has insisted to return those blank
cheques, the complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, due to
which, the respondent has also lodged a complaint as against the
complainant and her husband before the Thiruvengadam Police Station
and the same was registered in Crime No.12 of 2008 for the offence
under Sections 294b, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. According to
the learned counsel, after investigation since this First Information
Report was found to be correct, a final report was also filed in CC No.
154 of 2008. However, the accused was acquitted by the trial Court.
6.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also
perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 11:51:59 am )
7.This criminal appeal is arising out of a private complaint
proceedings instituted under Section 200 of Cr.P.C for the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as against the
respondent. The case of the complainant is that this respondent has
borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 07.09.2007 and in discharge of
the same, he has issued a cheque on 18.12.2007, which was presented
for collection on 22.12.2007 and it was returned as insufficient funds.
Therefore, after issuing notice as required under section 138(b) of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, this complaint was instituted by the
complainant. Though, the date of the complaint is not available, the
fact remains that there was a transaction between the respondent and
the complainant’s husband and that was also admitted by the
complainant's husband , who was examined as DW2. The accused has
also issued a reply notice on 21.01.2008 to the legal notice issued by
the complainant, wherein, he has denied the complaint in the notice
dated 12.01.2008 and has also stated about his complaint, dated
20.12.2007, which was lodged before the Thiruvengadam Police
Station for the collection of exorbitant interest by the complainant.
There was an enquiry in the Police station on 01.01.2008, wherein, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 11:51:59 am )
complainant and her husband have refused to return the cheques,
which were handed over by the respondent. Therefore, the case was
registered on 03.02.2008. However, this complaint under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted subsequently without
any reference to the reply notice dated 21.01.2008 and the FIR in
Crime No.12 of 2008, which was registered as against the complainant
and her husband.
8.In view of the above and in the absence of any proof on the
legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the respondent,
this Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment rendered by the
trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
26.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No.
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
vrn
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 11:51:59 am )
The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil
B.PUGALENDHI, J.,
vrn
Judgment made in
26.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 11:51:59 am )
