The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of a cheque dishonour case. The Court held that disputed facts could not be examined, the trial had reached an advanced stage, and the petition was devoid of merits.
Petition dismissed; directed to raise defences in trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 28.09.2020 Pronounced on : 09.10.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.OP.No.9326 of 2018
and Crl.MP.No.4809 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.9773 of 2019 M.Santhanamary ... Petitioner / Accused Vs. Karthik Sivaraman Represented by his Power of Attorney Mr.M.S.Ramesh ... Respondent / Complainant
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and quash the case in C.C.No.1061 of 2016 on the file of the III Fast Track Court, Saidapet, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathyabal For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay ORDER
This case was heard through video conferencing.
3.1 The case of the complainant (Karthik Sivaraman) is that he, his wife Padma Karthik and one Mrs.Radha Ramesh are the absolute owners of the Flat No.402, in 'Surendra Homes', at Door No.1, Pammal Main Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043 and that Arokiaraj, the husband of the accused had approached him, sometime in the month of September 2014 for purchase of the said property, and the sale was concluded at Rs.85 lakhs. Thereafter, the complainant and other owners of the property executed a sale deed in favour of Arokiaraj (husband of the accused) on 24.12.2014, and towards the sale consideration of
Rs.85 lakhs, received three cheques viz., Ch.No.072014 for Rs.25 lakhs; Ch.No.169455 for Rs.20 lakhs, and Ch.No.169456 for Rs.40 lakhs, all drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. Of which, two cheques (Ch.No.169455 & 169456) were signed by Arokiaraj, and impugned cheque bearing No.072014 was signed by the accused. The dates in the cheques were not filled by the accused or by her husband, and they have requested the owners of the property to present the cheques only when they make arrangement for clearance of the cheques.
3.2 On 30.11.2015, the accused herself had contacted Karthik Sivaraman, and instructed him to present the impugned cheque and accordingly, Karthik Sivaraman filled the date in the cheque bearing No.072014 for Rs.25 lakhs and presented it on the same day for clearance. This cheque was returned by the Bank vide Return Memo dated 02.12.2015 indicating “insufficient funds”. Since the attempts made by him to approach the accused, went in vain, he issued a legal notice dated 28.12.2015, requiring the accused to pay the sum of Rs.25 lakhs and this notice was delivered to the accused on 30.12.2015.
3.3 Thereafter, Karthik Sivaraman represented by her Power Agent Mr.M.S.Ramesh initiated a prosecution in C.C.No.1061 of 2016, (originally before the Judicial Magistrate No.IX, Saidapet) which is now pending on the file of the III Fast Track Court, Saidapet, Chennai, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Insturments Act, 1881, against the accused, and to quash the said case, the accused has preferred the present criminal original petition.
petitioner/accused took this Court through the pleadings in the connected suit between the parties to show that there are contradictions in the stand of the complainant.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To:
The Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai.
Crl.OP.No.9326 of 2018
mp[co] srg 21/10/2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be quashed given the advanced stage of trial and insufficient grounds.
Whether disputed facts regarding the issuance and presentation of the cheque can be examined in a quash petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Santhanamary
Karthik Sivaraman
P.N.PRAKASH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
