Madras High Court
Mrs.Seetha vs M/S.Raagav Tourist Service on 11 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.581 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.581 of 2022
Mrs.Seetha ...Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
1.M/s.Raagav Tourist Service,
rep. By its Proprietor,
Mr.Vasu,
S/o.Ramanujam,
No.R.40 A/12, TNHB Complex,
Ambattur Estate Main Road,
Mogappair, Chennai -37.
2.Mr.R.Vasu ...Respondents/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, against the judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Ambattur, in
C.C.No.272 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Perarasu
For Respondents : Mr.S.Suresh
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
Crl.A.No.581 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Ambattur, dated
16.02.2022 made in C.C.No.272 of 2019. By the said judgment, the Trial
Court has acquitted the respondents/accused for an offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. This is a private complaint filed by the appellant herein under
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure complaining of an offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused was known to the
complainant and her husband for over a period of seven years. Previously the
complainant had lent certain amounts and had also been repaid and in that
manner the accused gained the confidence of the complainant and her
husband. While so, in the year 2017 they sold the property at Ayyappa
Nagar, Ayyapakkam Village, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur and were having the
sale consideration in their hands. At that time the accused approached them
and sought a loan of a total sum of Rs.40 lakhs. The complainant lent a sum
of Rs.20 lakhs and her husband lent another sum of Rs.20 lakhs in the last
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
week of December 2017. After repeated demands made by the complainant
and her husband the accused issued the subject-matter cheque dated
25.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs in her favour and another cheque in
favour of her husband. When the cheque was presented by the complainant
the same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement stating “Drawer's
Signature Differs”. A statutory notice was also issued on 03.11.2018 which
was received by the accused on 05.11.2018. However, no payment was made
within the period of fifteen days and thereafter the private complaint was
lodged.
4. Upon recording of the sworn statement summons was issued. The
accused appeared and upon furnishing of copies and questioning denied the
allegations and stood trial. In order to prove the charge, the complainant
examined herself as PW1 and the cheque dated 25.10.2018 was marked as
Ex.P1; the return memo dated 26.10.2018 as Ex.P2; the legal notice dated
03.11.2018 as Ex.P3; and the sale deed bearing Doc.No.16450 of 2017 as
Ex.P4. When, upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence on
record under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was led on behalf
of the defence.
5. The Trial Court considered the case of the parties. Since the original
of the acknowledgment card of receipt of the legal notice was not produced
and the photocopy that was sought to be marked was objected to and it was
refused to be marked, the Trial Court held that the complainant failed to
prove the service of the legal notice. Secondly, the Trial Court held that by
cross-examination of PW1, the accused had also rebutted the presumption to
the level of preponderance of probability and on that ground also gave the
benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.
6. Mr.V.Perarasu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, would submit that the fact that the complainant had the money is
proved by marking the sale deed under Ex.P4. When the original
acknowledgment card was presented and was produced for perusal at the
time of recording of the sworn statement, merely because the same was
misplaced, the Trial Court erred in refusing to mark the photocopy. It must
be seen that it is not even the case of the accused that no notice was served;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
no question was put to PW1 regarding the service of the statutory notice. In
the absence of the same, the Trial Court ought to have held that the
complainant proved the service of the statutory notice and the finding in this
regard is erroneous. With reference to the liability, PW1 and her husband are
illiterate persons and innocuously certain answers are given by PW1 but,
however, when relevant questions were asked relating to advancing of the
loan and the grant of the cheque, PW1 stood her ground that they had money
on account of the sale (Ex.P4) and out of the sale consideration they had
advanced the loan and only in repayment thereof the cheque was issued.
Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. He would
submit that the poor complainant has been defrauded of a huge sum by the
accused by reason of her lending and the Trial Court did not consider the
same and left the complainant remediless.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/accused, by pointing out the cross-examination, would submit
that in this case it is the case of the accused that he had left the blank cheque
during a chit transaction. When PW1 was cross-examined she categorically
admitted that she had not given any money for interest. Secondly, even the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
sale by way of Ex.P4, when cross-examined, was admitted that they had
pledged the jewels with the auditor and out of the sale consideration money
was also paid and the jewels were also redeemed. Therefore, the capability to
advance such a huge sum is also not proved before the Court. To top it all,
PW1 has admitted that it was only her husband who had filled up the cheque.
Therefore, when it is not the case in the complaint that the accused had given
the blank cheque with authority to the complainant's husband to fill up the
same and present it for collection, this crucial admission goes to the root of
the matter and the Trial Court is right in acquitting the accused. This apart,
when the accused has cross-examined that the complainant's husband was in
the habit of getting a blank cheque at the time of entering into chit
transactions, PW1 has admitted the same. In view thereof the Trial Court has
rightly concluded that the case of the accused is probable and given the
benefit of doubt.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
finding of the Trial Court regarding the issue of statutory notice cannot be
accepted. When it is stated by the complainant that the original
acknowledgment card is misplaced and the photocopy was sought to be
marked, the same was rejected by the Trial Court. To top it all, during the
entire cross-examination of PW1 there was no whisper on behalf of the
accused that no notice was ever served on the accused. Therefore, I am not in
agreement with the finding relating to the same. However, with reference to
merits in this case the amount is said to have been advanced in the year 2017
the total amount is said to be Rs.40 lakhs. Such a huge amount is said to have
been advanced without any document whatsoever. Secondly, PW1 has also
admitted that it was not also for interest. When the complainant and her
husband sold the house, it fails the reason as to why they would sell the
house only to advance money to the accused without even any interest,
especially when such a huge amount was paid. Thirdly, it is the averment in
the complaint that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid towards interest and that
goes contrary to the averment in the legal notice. The accused has requested
the complainant to adjust the amount either towards interest or towards
principal. It is not the case of the complainant in the complaint or the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
statutory notice that the cheque was handed over with authority to fill up and
present it to the bank. Whereas, in the cross-examination it is admitted that it
was only the complainant and her husband who filled up the cheque. Further,
it is also admitted that the complainant's husband was running a chit
transaction. It is further admitted that the accused was also a member of the
chit transaction in the year 2017. It is further admitted that the complainant's
husband used to take a blank cheque from every subscriber while entering
into the chit transaction.
10. In view of all the admissions the Trial Court has rendered a finding
that the case of the accused seems to be probable and the same cannot be
held to be perverse or impossible.
11. In view thereof, in an appeal against acquittal, this Court is unable
to upset the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, finding no merits, the
criminal appeal stands dismissed.
11.11.2025
cda
Index : No
Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Ambattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
cda
11.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 02:49:40 pm )
