Allowed

A.Ramakrishnan v. Barclays Bank Plc

Madras HC15 Mar 2017CRL OP/14215/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a single-paragraph order, the Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash criminal proceedings initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour. The Court held that initiating such proceedings controvert a final civil court decree that already regulated the presentation of the cheques, constituting an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.4196 of 2010 were quashed and the Criminal Original Petition was allowed.

A.Ramakrishnan Vs Barclays Bank Plc — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

Crl.O.P No.14215 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
A.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner
vs.
Barclays Bank PLC
No.24, 2 nd Avenue, 15 th Street,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.
Rep. by its Associate Legal Manager,
Mr.Manish Xavier ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.4196 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Guberan for M/s.Rank Associates

¶9

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner who has been arrayed as accused in C.C.No.4196 of 2010 on the file of the XVII^th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, has come up with the present petition to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid Calendar Case.

¶14

2.The short facts of the instant original petition is that the respondent herein filed a complaint by invoking the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act for the dishonour of the cheque bearing No.823903 dated 21.01.2010 for a sum of Rs.86,766/-. The further case of the petitioner is that the complaint in C.C.No.4196 of 2010 was filed in the year 2010. Whereas, the petitioner had filed an Original Suit before the City Civil Court at Chennai in O.S.No.6020 of 2008. The prayer sought for in the original suit was permanent for injunction restraining the bank in any manner with receiving EMI payments for the loan Account No.000001835638 of the petitioner through ECS from Indian Overseas Bank, West Mambalam Branch, Chennai for a sum of Rs.14,461/- every month. Further the relief sought for in the original suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent/Bank herein from presenting for clearance the cheque numbers 823901 to 823907 drawn at the aforesaid Indian Overseas Bank as they have been issued as a security for http://www.judis.nic.in repayment of loan Account No.000001834638 of the petitioner.

¶15

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶17

the complaint sought to be quashed in C.C.No.4196 of 2010 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and also an act of contempt of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.6020 of 2008 on the file of the City Civil Court

¶18

at Chennai.

¶19

4.The case of the respondent is that the cheque in dispute is the

¶20

cheque is the subject matter of the aforesaid original suit. At the same time he has contended that several thousands of rupees as dues is payable to the respondent bank by the petitioner.

¶21

5.I heard Mr.Guberan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶22

No representation on behalf of the respondent and all the materials available on records are perused.

¶23

6.It is the admitted fact that the subject matter of the complaint in

¶24

C.C.No.4196 of 2010 is a cheque bearing number 823903 dated 21.01.2010 for a sum of Rs.86,766/-. Further the very same cheque is also the subject matter of the original suit in O.S.No.6020 of 2008 on the

¶25

file of the aforesaid Court. There is no dispute that the competent Civil http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

Court has passed a decree and judgment to that effect not only the cheque in dispute but some other cheques of the petitioner are also ordered not to be presented for collection. No material has been produced as against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.6020 of 2008 for the filing of any appeal suit in this regard. Hence, the pendency of the proceedings in C.C.No.4196 of 2010 on the file of the XVII^th Metro Politian Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is contrary to the decree and judgment of the competent Civil Court and the same is impermissible in law. Further, even the institution of the complaint by invoking the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments act is an abuse of process of law.

¶28

7.So, in the circumstances discussed above the proceedings of the Calendar Case in C.C.No.4196 of 2010 is deserved quashment and accordingly quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

15.03.2017

¶30

Note:Issue order copy on 18.08.2017 Index : Yes Internet : Yes

¶31

¶32

¶33

The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

¶36

M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.

¶37

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.14215 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
15.03.2017

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

A.Ramakrishnan v. Barclays Bank Plc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ramakrishnan v. Barclays Bank Plc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugesan Vs Marayammal

Vasantha Vs Manickam @ Thandapani

D.Moorthy Vs Palanikumar

Dhanapal Vs Malliga

Anna Podhu Thozhil Sangam, Vs Thiru Chandrakanth B Kamble

M.Senthil Kumar Vs the Superintending Engineer