Dismissed

B.Arokkiaraj, v. Mrs.Radha Ramesh

Madras HC9 Oct 2020CRL OP/9327/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P. filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a Section 138 NI Act case. The High Court held that the trial had reached an advanced stage and disputed facts could not be examined. The petition was dismissed, directing the accused to raise defenses in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with direction to the petitioner to raise available defenses in the trial court.

B.Arokkiaraj, Vs Mrs.Radha Ramesh — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on : 28.09.2020 Pronounced on : 09.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.9327 of 2018

¶6

and Crl.MP.No.4811 of 2018 and Crl.MP.No.9774 of 2019

¶7

B.Arokkiaraj ... Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
Radha Ramesh
W/o.M.S.Ramesh
Represented by her Power of Attorney
Mr.M.S.Ramesh ... Respondent / Complainant

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and quash the case in C.C.No.1597 of 2016 on the file of the III Fast Track Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathyabal For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay ORDER

¶10

This case was heard through video conferencing.

¶11

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as the complainant and the accused.

¶12

3.1 The case of the complainant (Radha Ramesh) is that she, one Karthik Sivaraman and his wife Padma Karthik 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 the accused had approached her, 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 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

¶13

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

¶14

lakhs; Ch.No.169455 for Rs.20 lakhs, and Ch.No.169456 for Rs.40 lakhs, all drawn on Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, by the accused. The dates in the cheques were not filled by the accused and the accused had requested the owners of the property to present the cheques only when he makes arrangement for clearance of the cheques.

¶15

3.2 On 30.11.2015, the accused himself had contacted Radha Ramesh and instructed her to present the impugned cheque and accordingly, Radha Ramesh filled the date in the cheque bearing No.169456 for Rs.40 lakhs and presented it on the same day for clearance. This cheque was returned by the Bank vide Return Memo dated 01.12.2015 indicating “Account Blocked”. Since the attempts made by her to approach the accused, went in vain, she issued a legal notice dated 28.12.2015, requiring the accused to pay the sum of Rs.40 lakhs and this notice was delivered to the accused on 30.12.2015.

¶16

3.3 Thereafter, Radha Ramesh, represented by her Power Agent Mr.M.S.Ramesh initiated a prosecution in C.C.No.1597 of 2016, (originally before the Judicial Magistrate No.XVII, 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 Instruments Act, 1881, against the accused, and to quash the said case, the accused has preferred the present criminal original petition.

¶17

Heard Mr.K.Sathyabal, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶18

Mr.K.Sathyabal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused contended that the impugned cheque bearing No.169456 was issued on 24.12.2014, but it was presented for clearance by the complainant only on 30.11.2015, which is after its validity.

¶19

Per contra, Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant contended that the impugned cheque is dated 30.11.2015, and not 24.12.2014. He further contended that while executing the sale deed on 24.12.2014, the accused gave the impugned cheque along with two other cheques, all undated cheques, and that only on the instructions of the accused, the complainant has presented the impugned cheque for clearance on 30.11.2015 in M/s.Dhanalaxmi Bank, T.Nagar, Chennai, after duly filling up the date as 30.11.2015.

¶20

This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

¶21

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

¶22

A reading of the statutory demand notice of the complainant shows that the complainant had not suppressed the fact that the impugned cheque was handed over to her on 24.12.2014, but, as contended, it was an undated cheque and the date was filled by her, only after the accused gave clearance for presenting it.

¶23

Mr.K.Sathyabal, learned counsel for the 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.

¶24

In the opinion of this Court, the pleadings in the connected suit cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That apart, information called for from the trial Court shows that in C.C.No.1597 of 2016, P.W.1 was examined in chief on 11.04.2017; the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 25.05.2017; the accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., on 15.06.2017, for recalling P.W.1, which was allowed on 02.08.2017. Only thereafter, the accused had filed the present quash petition in Crl.OP.No.9327 of 2018 on 22.03.2018, and has obtained an order of stay on 03.07.2018. Thus, it is apparent that the trial has reached an advanced stage, and this was not brought to the notice of this Court by the accused in the present quash petition. It is pertinent to state here that the cheque was not returned on the ground that it was time barred but on the ground of insufficiency of funds.

¶25

In such view of the matter, disputed facts cannot be gone into in the present quash petition. This petition is devoid of merits and hence, dismissed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court and raise all the defences available to him in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.OP.No.9327 of 2018

¶30

To:

¶31

The Judge Fast Track Court No.III, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶32

mp[co] srg 21/10/2020

¶33

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

B.Arokkiaraj, v. Mrs.Radha Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Arokkiaraj, v. Mrs.Radha Ramesh

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

Shahul Hameed Vs State Rep.by

Senthilkumar Vs State, Represented by

M/S. Best and Crompton Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Santhanamary, Vs Mr.Karthik Sivaraman

Mrs.K.Lakshmi, Aged 56 Years Vs Inspector of Police

B.Arokkiaraj, Vs M/S.Padma Karthik