Dismissed

Salem Sooriya Poultry and Emu v. K. Kalyani

Madras HC22 Sept 2021CRL OP/20837/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the petition for quashing (Cr.P.C. s. 482) a stagnant cheque dishonour trial (NI Act s. 138), the Court held that claims of prior payment require account reconciliation suitable for the trial court, while granting liberty to raise this defence later.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition for quashing was dismissed; liberty granted to petitioners to plead in the trial court that the cheque amount was paid earlier.

Salem Sooriya Poultry and Emu Vs K. Kalyani — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Crl.OP.No.20837/2015 & MP.No.1/2015

¶6

Salem Sooriya Poultry & Emu Farms India Private Limited rep.by its Managing Director M.Jayakumar Managing Director, 5-F Ram Lakshman Tower

¶7

Saratha College Road

¶8

Near RBS Bank, Sri Ram Nagar Alagapuram, 5 Roads, Salem-16.

¶9

M.Jayakumar

¶10

...Petitioners / A1 & A2

¶11

Versus

¶12

K.Kalyani

¶13

...Respondent/Complainant

¶14

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in STC.No.116/2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Sankagiri, Salem, and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.C.S.Saravanan

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.Ragavendran for Mr.S.Babu

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(1) The petition has been filed by A1 and A2 in STC No.116/2015 which is now pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sankagiri, Salem District. The said case had been filed consequent to a complaint given by the respondent herein under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which had been taken cognizance originally by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam and subsequently, transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sangagiri, who had renumbered the same as STC.No.116/2015.

¶19

(2) The primary issue taken up by the petitioners herein is that the amount now sought by the respondent in view of the cheque issued to them, being returned on the ground of

¶20

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

¶21

(3)

¶22

''funds insufficient'', had already been paid. This would require reconciliation of Accounts between the petitioners and the respondent and that is an exercise which can be best done by the Court of first instance.

¶23

(3) Therefore, without going into the facts any more in detail, I would dismiss the present Original Petition, however, grant liberty to the petitioners herein that if they put up a defence that the amount mentioned in the cheque, had already been paid earlier and produce necessary statements regarding the same, after giving due opportunity to the respondent herein/defacto complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sangagiri, may also examine that particular issue quite independent of the issues which naturally arise for consideration in any proceedings on a complaint under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶24

(4) With that observation, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

¶30

The Judicial Magistrate, Sankagiri, Salem.

¶31

-do through- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

¶32

The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.S.Babu, Advocate, S.R.No.48468

¶34

Crl.OP.No.20837/2015

¶35

NRL[co] NSK 09/11/2021

¶36

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

Salem Sooriya Poultry and Emu v. K. Kalyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salem Sooriya Poultry and Emu v. K. Kalyani

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

Sriramulu, Vs the Director General of

B.Sathya Ganesh Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Santhosh Kumar Vs R.Ravichandran

Mr.J.Sasikumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

E.Rukmani, (FEMALE/65 Years) Vs State Represented by

Donald Serg Vs the Assistant Commissioner