Dismissed

M.Ahmed Mustafa v. a.Habib Rahman

Madras HC15 Dec 2015CRL OP/1908/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash a private complaint regarding a bounced cheque under Section 138 NI Act. The court held that the petitioner's allegations of false statements constitute a defence to be pleaded during trial and are not grounds for quashing the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismi

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. No relief was granted to the petitioner.

M.Ahmed Mustafa Vs a.Habib Rahman — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.12.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in C.C.No.5073 of 2013 on the file of Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram ORDER

¶7

The present criminal original petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.5073 of 2013 on the file of Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶8

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.5073 of 2013 on the private complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it has been stated that the complainant and the accused are family members. The respondent / complainant sold all his wife's jewels got as Seethana from her parent's house and retained them as cash for the purpose of starting a new business venture. In the said situation, the petitioner approached the complainant and requested him to pay loan for the development of his business. The respondent / complainant advanced a loan to the tune of Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner/ accused and he has also promised to repay the same within six months. After repeated demands made by the complainant, at last on 05.05.2013, the accused has issued a post dated cheque bearing No.535712, dated 10.06.2013, ICICI Bank,

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai 600 034. The said cheque was presented on 10.06.2013 in IDBI Bank, Nandhanam Branch, Chennai - 35, by the complainant. But the same was returned vide its memo dated 11.06.2013, with an endorsement as "Account Closed". Thereafter, the respondent issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the petitioner has not paid the amount within the statutory period, he has filed a complaint in C.C.No.5073 of 2013 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. To quash the same, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

¶11

The only submission made by the petitioner is that he has not given any cheques to the defacto complainant by way of repaying any debt. The respondent who is a private money lendor has filed the private complaint with false allegations.

¶12

In my considered opinion, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not serve as a ground to quash the private complaint filed by the respondent. The same can be taken as defence only during the course of trial. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this petition.

¶13

Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar srn To The Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Chennai.

¶14

+1cc to Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram, Advocate, S.R.No.67819

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.1908 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶16

RV(CO) CA(12/01/2016)

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Ahmed Mustafa v. a.Habib Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ahmed Mustafa v. a.Habib Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.R.R.Aiyyappamani Vs State Rep.by

N.Murugesan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Tmt.T.L.Kannammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Boobalan Vs The Deputy Inspector General

S.Sevaraj Vs R.Palaniswamy

Gayathri Karthik Vs Jyotsan Sivakumar