further submitted that whatever the tiles received from the defacto complainantonly through proper invoice and he paid the entire amount as per the invoice to the defacto complainant. In fact defacto complainant issued statutory notice for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, dated 26.06.2020 for the dishonour of cheque for a sum of Rs.10,23,044/- for which, the petitioner issued a detailed reply notice stating that all the amount have been duly paid to the defacto complainant and the alleged cheque was not issued for any legal enforceable debt. Further, the petitioner also called upon the defacto complainant to return back the cheques, which were given as security at the time of their business transactions. He further submitted that even according to the defacto complainant, A1 who was working as a branch manager at Trcihy branch misappropriated entire amount and as such, the defacto complainant filed a suit for recovery of the entire amount only as against the first accused in O.S.No.131 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Trichy and it is pending for adjudication. On a perusal of the said plaint, there is absolutely no single allegation as against the petitioner in respect of misappropriation or non-paying the amount for the tiles which was supplied by A1. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not required in this case. In fact, A1 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.5749 of 2020 vide order dated 01.07.2020.
