Dismissed

N.Malathi v. S.Rajkumar

Madras HC7 Apr 2022CRL RC(MD)/467/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a money-laundering-related cheque dishonour case, the petitioner sought to amend the complaint to include transactions occurring after the period originally cited by adding causes of action that would significantly alter the timeline. The High Court bench held that the amendment would completely change the entire cause of action, thereby finding no infirmity in the lower court's dismissal of th

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition seeking to alter the cause of action via amendment dismissal was dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

N.Malathi Vs S.Rajkumar — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.467 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.04.2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.467 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4140 of 2020

¶4

N.Malathi

¶5

... Revision Petitioner/Complainant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

S.Rajkumar ... Respondent/ Accused

¶8

Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.2647 of 2018 in S.T.C.No.303/2014 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, (Fast Track Court) Madurai, and to set-aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2647 of 2018 in S.T.C.NO.303/2014 dated 17/02/2020.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For R1 : Mr.J.William Christopher

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The criminal revision case has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2647 of 2018 in S.T.C.No.303/2014, dated 17.02.2020.

¶12

2.The petitioner is the complainant and the respondent is the accused. The petitioner had filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as against the respondent alleging that the respondent approached the petitioner on 12.05.2012 and obtained loan to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- as personal loan. It was obtained through the respondent's wife. Thereafter, both obtained the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.05.2012, a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on 01.06.2012, a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 03.06.2012, a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 01.08.2012, a sum of Rs.80,000/- on 21.09.2012, a sum of Rs.17,100/on 28.09.2012, a sum of Rs.22,900/- on 12.01.2013, a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- on 12.01.2013, a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- on 13.01.2013, a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- on 13.01.2013 from the complainant. Totally, the respondent obtained a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.

¶13

3.In order to repay the said amount, the respondent issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. The said cheque was presented for collection and it was returned dishonored for the reason funds https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

1/3

¶15

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.467 of 2020

¶16

insufficient. After issuing statutory notice, the petitioner had filed the complaint. While pending the trial, the petitioner filed a petition seeking amendment of the complaint as follows:

¶17

'2.In Page No.1, to delete the para No.2 to add as 2. The Respondent/Accused had well acquaintance with the Complainant and out of the personal acquaintance the Respondent's wife one Jeyalakshmi approached the Complainant and the Complainant's husband one V.P. Narayanasamy on April 2012 to obtain as a personal loan to the Respondent's business debt. After that the Respondent and his wife obtained the loan amount a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) dated 06.07.2012 through the Complainant's husband's Cheque No.840052, Drawn at Canara Bank, Gomathipuram Branch, Madurai and a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) dated 29.06.2013 through NEFT and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) dated 25.07.2013 through NEFT and a sum of Rs.77,000/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Thousand) dated 25.02.2014 through NEFT and a sum of Rs.1,74,000/ (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Four Thousand) dated 02.09.2013 through the complainant's husband's cheque No.612971 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh) dated 26.09.2013 through the complainant's husband's cheque No.840056 drawn at Canara Bank, Gomathipuram Branch, Madurai and a sum of Rs 2,24,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Twenty Four Thousand) dated 08.04.2014 through the complainant's husband's cheque No.840058 drawn at Canara Bank, Gomathipuram Branch, Madurai and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs) dated 30.08.2013 through the complainant's son's cheque No.578105 and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) dated 26.09.2013 through the complainant's son's cheque No.578106, drawn at Canara Bank, Gomathipuram Branch, Madurai. The Respondent and his wife received the loan amount through cheques and NEFT total sum of Rs.11,75,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand).The Respondents/Accused wife received the loan amount through cash a sum of Rs. 13,25,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Twenty five Thousand), dated 02.01.2013 a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs), dated 20.03.2013 a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) dated 05.08.2013 a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) dated 05.11.2013 a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) dated 08.01.2014 a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) dated 08.03.2014 a sum of Rs25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) from the complainant. The loan amount is total sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs)

¶18

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

¶19

2/3

¶20

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.467 of 2020

¶21

obtained by the Respondent and his wife.'

¶22

4.On perusal of these amendments, which were sought for by the petitioner had changed the entire cause of action since as per the original complaint, statutory notice and the sworn statement recorded while taking cognizance of the complaint revealed that the entire transaction between 12.05.2012 and 13.01.2013, whereas, the amendment sought for by the petitioner revealed that subsequent to the said transaction from 20.03.2013 to 08.04.2013 are to be included in the complaint.

¶23

5.Therefore, the said amendment would completely change the entire cause of action of the complaint as such, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition for amendment and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II (Fast Track Court) Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.2647 of 2018 in S.T.C.No.303 of 2014, dated 17.02.2020. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

¶27

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

TO:

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate No.II (Fast Track Court), Madurai

¶30

COPY TO:

¶31

The Section officer, Criminal Section,

¶32

Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 COPIES)

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.C.M. ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-17762[F] dated 11/04/2022 )

¶34

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.467 of 2020 07.04.2022

¶35

RD(04.05.2022) 3P 5C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

N.Malathi v. S.Rajkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Malathi v. S.Rajkumar

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

Thilagar Vs Nagalakshmi

Guruvareddy Vs The Inspector of Police

J.John Kennedy Vs Samuel Jebakumar

K.Anbalagan Vs Saraswathi

C.Jeyaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

V.Saravanan Vs Logambal @ Vasanthi