Madras High Court
Chakravarthy vs Jayaprakash on 18 November, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1077 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1077 of 2022
Chakravarthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
Jayaprakash ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the learned III Additional Sessions
Judge, Villupuram at Kallakurichi in C.A.No.23 of 2019 dated 25.03.2021
by confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate FTC
Level, Kallakurichi in C.C.No.45 of 2013 convicting the petitioner on
15.02.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vikram Kumar
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.1077 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner, who is an accused in a case filed by the defacto
complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter
referred to as “NI Act”) in C.C.No.45 of 2013 was convicted by the Trial
Court by judgment dated 15.02.2019 and sentenced to undergo one year
simple imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant
as compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.23 of 2019. The learned III
Additional Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi by judgment dated 25.03.2021
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the Trial Court.
Against which, the present revision petition filed.
2.Today, the respondent/complainant is present through video
conferencing and his identity is not disputed. Since there was no
representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court appointed Mr.Vikram
Kumar, learned counsel as legal aid counsel on 03.11.2025.
3.The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-, in total, Rs.10,00,000/- from the
complainant by way of two cheques dated 02.06.2010 to meet his personal
and business requirement. Thereafter, the accused failed to repay the
amount received from the complainant. Finally, the accused in discharge of
his liability issued a cheque dated 07.08.2012 bearing No.317362 drawn on
Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Kallakurichi for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of
the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque for
encashment on 13.08.2012, the same was returned with an endorsement
“Exceeds Arrangement”. Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory notice
to the accused on 21.08.2012 and the same was received by the accused on
24.08.2012. The accused sent a reply with false averments on 29.08.2012.
Ignoring the same, the complainant filed a complainant, examined himself
as P.W.1 and three others, namely, Pandian, Balasundaram and Srinath
Kumar as P.W.2 to P.W.4 and marked ten documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On
the side of the accused, Srinath kumar was examined as D.W.1 and marked
two documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court
convicted the petitioner. Aggrieved the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal and the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
the conviction imposed by the Trial Court.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
complainant in this case though states that he had given a loan of
Rs.10,00,000/- but there is no materials to show as to how he mobilized
such a huge amount. Though the complainant claims that the amounts were
paid through cheque, the corresponding documents not produced. Further
the complainant has not shown the lending of Rs.10,00,000/- in his income
tax returns and there is no other document to show that the complainant had
means to pay. When the same has been dislodged, it is for the complainant
to prove that he had enough source of money to give loan of Rs.10,00,000/-.
On the contrary, the Trial Court found that the petitioner/accused not denied
the issuance of cheque and his signature in the cheque, hence Sections 118
and 139 of NI Act comes into play and no defence probabilized by the
accused and hence convicted him which is contrary to the materials and
evidence available in the case.
5.The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant strongly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that in this case
Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 are the cheques which were issued by the complainant at
the time of giving loan to the accused and these two cheques were encashed
which was proved by examining the bank witness. The petitioner/accused
received Rs.10,00,000/- and thereafter in discharge of his liability
Ex.P1/cheque issued. The petitioner received the statutory notice, not
denied the issuance of cheque and his signature but with his false averments
sent a reply. Thereafter, complaint filed by the complainant, examined four
witnesses and marked ten documents and proved that the accused issued
Ex.P1/cheque for discharge of his liability. Though the accused examined
the bank witness as D.W.1 and marked two documents/Ex.D1 and Ex.D2
but he was unable to probabilize his defence and the Trial Court rightly
convicted the petitioner/accused which was confirmed by the Lower
Appellate Court. He further submitted that in this case, the complainant
filed a civil suit against the petitioner in O.S.nNo.109 of 2013 and the suit
was decreed in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, he filed an Execution
Petition in E.P.No.47 of 2021 and in the Execution Petition, the payment of
Rs.10,00,000/- by the petitioner is recorded and the Execution Petition was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
closed. The petitioner/accused paid the cheque amount in the civil
proceedings and discharged his liability. He fairly submitted that the
petitioner has got no liability.
6.Now the only apprehension of the respondent/complainant is that
the petitioner having muscle power is threatening often and demanding
repayment of Rs.10,00,000/- by stating that he is ready to go to Prison and
serve one year period of imprisonment. The respondent's grievance is that it
was a civil transaction, an agreement for sale executed and it could not be
completed which was given a criminal colour.
7.Be that as it may, it is seen that the complainant fairly submitted
that the cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner and the
liability to Ex.P1 was discharged and the same is recorded by the Civil
Court in E.P.No.47 of 2021 in O.S.No.109 of 2013. The complainant
produced a receipt dated 01.10.2022 confirming the payment of
Rs.10,00,000/- on various dates and in the receipt for the last payment of
Rs.2,00,000/- the case in C.C.No.45 of 2013 has been referred. Hence, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
confirmed that the liability to Ex.P1 discharged and the petitioner/accused
has paid the entire cheque amount.
8.Recording the same, the judgment dated 25.03.2021 made in
C.A.No.23 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge,
Villupuram at Kallakurichi and the judgment dated 15.02.2019 made in
C.C.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, FTC
Level, Kallakurichi, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of all the
charges levelled against him.
9.For the apprehension of the respondent/complainant that the
petitioner is often threatening the complainant and his family members for
which the respondent lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police,
Kallakurichi Police Station on 07.09.2022, 24.05.2023, 01.06.2023,
07.06.2023, 16.06.2023 and 19.06.2023, C.S.R.No.1040 of 2022 assigned
on 08.09.2022 but the Inspector of Police not taken any action which further
embolden the petitioner to further cause threat and assault the
respondent/complainant. It is seen that there have been several complaints
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
but no action taken by the Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station.
Hence, the Inspector of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station is directed to
take action on the complaint given by the respondent, if found to be true and
take necessary action against the offender.
10.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed with
the above direction.
18.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
To
1.The III Additional Sessions Judge,
Villupuram at Kallakurichi.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
FTC Level,
Kallakurichi
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kallakurichi Police Station
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
18.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 06:15:49 pm )
