Dismissed

G.Shanthi v. N.Chitra

Madras HC1 Aug 2023CRL OP/1886/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered criminal original petitions challenging orders dismissing Section 91 Cr.P.C. applications filed by the petitioner in cheque-dishonor cases. The court declined to interfere with the lower court's refusal to direct the respondent to produce documents, noting the petitioner could still establish repayment via bank records later.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to establish defense by producing bank records or calling bank manager at a later stage; applications for section 91 Cr.P.C. direction denied.

G.Shanthi Vs N.Chitra — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 of 6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P Nos.1886 & 1887 of 2023 and Crl.M.P Nos.1099 & 1100 of 2023

¶7

Mrs.G.Shanthi

¶8

Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps

¶9

vs.

¶10

Mrs.N.Chitra Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps

¶11

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.1886 of 2023: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.41039 of 2022 in S.T.C.No.7525 of 2022 (pending on the file of the Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai) and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.41039 of 2022 in STC No.7525 of 2022 dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Fast Track Court II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.

¶12

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.1887 of 2023: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.41038 of 2022 in S.T.C.No.7526 of 2022 (pending on the file of the Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai) and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.41038 of 2022 in STC No.7526 of 2022 dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Fast Track Court II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

2 of 6

¶15

In Both Cases

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Mathew Berchmans For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Ravi

¶17

ORDER

¶18

These petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., wherein, the petitioner had sought for a direction to furnish certain documents in order to establish his defense.

¶19

2.The respondent filed two complaints against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even before the complaint was given, there were exchange of notices between the parties and the defense that is going to be taken by the petitioner in each complaint has also been clearly spelt out in the reply notice that was given by the petitioner for the statutory notice. The case was at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. At this stage, the petitioner filed application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent and his daughters to furnish certain documents.

¶20

3.The Court below on considering the stage of the case and also the facts

¶21

and circumstances of the case, came to a conclusion that the documents sought

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

3 of 6

¶24

for need not be called for and accordingly, the applications filed in each complaint came to be dismissed by an order dated 10.01.2023. Aggrieved by the same, these criminal original petitions have been filed before this Court.

¶25

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

5.The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner on the ground that they are relatives and that the respondent on various dates had lent certain amount to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not repay back the amount. The petitioner is said to have issued a promissory note and also cheque for the repayment of the loan amount. When the cheque was deposited, it was dishonored. After issuance of statutory notice, the complaint came to be filed against the petitioner.

¶27

6.The petitioner has taken a stand even in the reply notice to the effect that the petitioner has already repaid back the entire amount to the respondent and that the respondent was attempting to misuse the signed promissory note and two signed blank cheques which were given for security purpose. The petitioner while giving the reply has also explained the manner in which the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

4 of 6

¶29

amount was repaid back to the respondent. The petitioner therefore wants to establish this defense by calling upon the respondent and his daughters to furnish certain documents which according to the petitioner will show that the entire amount has been repaid back.

¶30

7.The case is now at the stage of cross-examination of the respondent (PW1). The petitioner has to first cross-examine the respondent by putting all the relevant questions to the respondent. According to the petitioner, there are two modes of repayment of the loan amount. The first was by way of transfer of the amount from the back account of the petitioner and her son to the Bank account of respondent and her daughters. The next mode of repayment that is claimed by the petitioner is the lease amounts that were transferred by the tenants directly to the bank account of the respondent and her daughters. Insofar as the first set of repayment, the petitioner can always establish the same by producing the bank account particulars of the petitioner and also her son. The other mode of repayment can be established by calling the Bank Manager of the concerned Bank to furnish the relevant details of the payments that were made by the tenants to the account of the respondent and her daughters. By adopting this process, the petitioner can always establish her defence, if really she has repaid back the entire amount.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

5 of 6

¶33

8.In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below at this stage. However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioner to establish her defence at a later point of time in the proceedings.

¶34

9.In the result, both the criminal original petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

01.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ssr

¶36

¶37

1.The Fast Track Court-II, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.

¶38

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

6 of 6

¶41

N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.

¶42

ssr

¶43

Crl.O.P Nos.1886 & 1887 of 2023 and Crl.M.P Nos.1099 & 1100 of 2023

¶44

01.08.2023

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Shanthi v. N.Chitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Shanthi v. N.Chitra

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

K.Parameswaran Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Ragu Vs State Rep by

U.Ravi Varman Vs State Rep by

Rajammal Vs State by Inspector of Police

T.Sunil Ross Vs S.Esudian

Shan Basha Vs Inspector of Police