Madras High Court
P.S.Deivaraj vs M.Jaya on 13 November, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.A.No.558 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.558 of 2022
P.S.Deivaraj ... Petitioner
Vs
M.Jaya ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, to set aside the judgement passed in S.T.C.No. 288 of 2017
dated 19.08.2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
(Magistrate Level), Tiruchencode.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Muruganantham
For Respondent : Mr.M.Guruprasad
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Tiruchengode, dated
19.08.2020, made in S.T.C. No. 288 of 2017.
2. By the said judgment, the trial Court acquitted the respondent of the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
private complaint filed by the appellant under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused is well known to the
complainant. The accused borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the
complainant on 02.08.2016 at the complainant’s residence and promised to
repay the said amount within eight months with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum. On the same day of borrowal, in discharge of her liability, she issued a
cheque dated 19.04.2017 for the said sum of Rs.10 lakhs and promised to pay
the interest. In the meanwhile, the accused kept her promise of paying interest
up to February 2017. However, thereafter, she failed to pay the interest also.
The complainant presented the cheque for collection on 19.04.2017 and the
same was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, a
statutory notice was issued. The respondent/accused did not pay the amount
but issued a reply notice dated 09.05.2017 with false particulars. Therefore,
the complaint was presented. After recording the sworn statement, the case
was taken on file as S.T.C. No. 288 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
4. Upon issue of summons, copies and questioning, the accused denied
the allegations. In order to bring home the charge, the complainant examined
himself as P.W.1. The subject cheque was marked as Ex.P1, the return memo
as Ex.P2 and the statutory notice and postal acknowledgment card were
marked as Exs.P3 and P4. The reply notice was marked as Ex.P5. Upon being
questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the
incriminating evidence on record, the accused denied the same as false.
Thereafter, one Dharmaraj was examined as D.W.1 and the accused examined
herself as D.W.2. Exs.D1 to D24 were also marked on behalf of the accused.
The documentary evidence related to the connected proceedings in I.P. No. 8
of 2017 and the exchange of notices in that regard, various other cheques
issued and copies of other cases filed by the complainant were also marked.
5. The trial Court, after considering the case of the parties, found that in
the complaint, the complainant did not even properly state how the accused
was known to him or for what purpose, the loan was obtained. The trial Court
further found that except for the cheque, there was no other evidence for the
transaction involving such a huge amount of Rs.10 lakhs. The complainant
had not produced income tax records or any other evidence to prove his
financial capacity or the purpose for which the loan was advanced to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
accused or the necessity of the accused to borrow such a large amount. The
trial Court, thereafter considered the cheque and held that, in view of the
evidence let in by the accused that the cheque was given by her as a blank
cheque to her husband in respect of other transactions between the
complainant and her husband and was subsequently filled up and being
claimed as for the loan amount, the accused had established a probable
defence. Accordingly, the trial Court granted the benefit of doubt to the
accused and acquitted her, against which this appeal has been filed.
6. Mr.T.Muruganantham, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant submitted that the complainant had clearly and cogently spoken
about the borrowal and the fact that the accused borrowed the amount with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The accused had also paid the interest
up to February 2017 and thereafter, the cheque was presented by the
complainant and upon being dishonoured, the case was filed. Therefore, even
though the accused tried to cross-examine the complainant by producing
records relating to the insolvency proceedings initiated by the complainant,
except for bringing out a minor discrepancy regarding the payment of interest
for one or two months, where the complainant had mentioned in the criminal
case that the interest was paid upto February and in the insolvency
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
proceedings it was mentioned as upto April, nothing else was brought on
record by the accused. As a matter of fact, the filing of those documents by the
defence would only fortify the fact that the complainant had advanced the
loan. The complainant categorically stated that he had reflected the loan
amount in his income tax account and had been filing income tax returns
through his auditor. In view thereof, except attempting to raise a doubt, no
evidence to the level of preponderance of probability was let in by the accused
to rebut the presumption and as such, the trial Court ought to have convicted
the accused.
7. Per contra, Mr.M.Guruprasad, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused submitted that in this case there is absolutely no
evidence relating to the advancement of sum of Rs.10 Lakhs and not even the
purpose for which the loan was borrowed was mentioned. The accused let in
both oral and documentary evidence to categorically prove that the cheque
was not given by her by duly filling up the amount and the date and that it was
only a blank cheque given by her husband in connection with some other
transaction. Without returning the same, the cheque was misused and the trial
Court has properly appreciated the evidence to come to that conclusion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
9. In this case, admittedly, the complainant is a financier. He states that
the accused is a person well known to him. As a matter of fact, he himself says
that the accused is also in the finance business. He never mentioned the
purpose for which the loan was borrowed either in the statutory notice or in
the complaint. The fact that the complainant being a financier, advanced such
a high amount in cash without even insisting on any document was rightly
taken into account by the trial Court. Secondly, even assuming that the
complainant had given the loan by taking only the cheque, the very fact that
the complainant did not depose that the cheque was duly filled up by the
accused at his house when the borrowal was made was also taken into
account.
10. A perusal of the cheque shows that the signature is in different ink
and the other entries are in a different ink. The fact that a person advancing
such a huge amount of loan did not even ensure that the cheque was filled up
by the accused herself was also considered. Thus, even before the presumption
is raised, I am of the view that the complainant’s case is wobbly in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
discharging his initial burden as to the advancement of loan and the issue of
the cheque. Be that as it may, by further cross-examination, by examining
herself as D.W.2, and by placing on record documents relating to the
connected proceedings, the accused has rebutted the presumption to the level
of preponderance of probability that the cheque could have been issued as
security with reference to the transactions between her husband and the
complainant. Once the accused has rebutted the presumption, in the absence
of any further proof from the complainant with reference to the advancement
of loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, the finding of the trial Court that the benefit of
doubt should be given to the accused and that she should be acquitted of the
offence cannot be said to be perverse or implausible so as to upturn in an
appeal against acquittal.
11. Accordingly, finding no merits, the appeal stands dismissed.
13.11.2025
Neutral Citation: No
nsl
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Tiruchencode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl
13.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/11/2025 04:32:40 pm )
