Dismissed

H.Ramani v. S.Rama Devi

Madras HC10 Oct 2023CRL OP/29991/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Cheque Dishonour proceedings under Section 138 NI Act alleging vitiation of the complaint. The Court held the complaint stands as statutory notice details the borrowing. The Cr.OP was dismissed, dispensing with personal appearance for intermediate stages.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; Criminal proceedings not quashed; personal appearance dispensed with for intermediate stages.

H.Ramani Vs S.Rama Devi — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.29991 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.29991 of 2019 and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.16190 and 16191 of 2019

¶8

H.Ramani ...Petitioner

-Vs-

S.Rama Devi

... Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in C.C.No.2835 of 2015 and quash proceedings therein.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.V.Sairam For Respondent : Not Ready in Notice, No Appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed calling for the

¶16

records on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in C.C.No.2835 of 2015 and to quash the same.

¶17

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

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.29991 of 2019

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶21

materials available on record.

¶22

The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in two parts on 22.01.2014 and 28.01.2014. On the date of borrowal, the petitioner had also executed a pro-note for the said sum in favour of the respondent and agreed to pay the entire loan amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Towards the repayment of the said loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque and the same was presented for collection. However, it was returned dishonour for the reason “Insufficient Funds”. After causing statutory notice, the respondent lodged a complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.2835 of 2015.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the statutory notice, the respondent stated that after borrowal of the said amount, it was treated as an advance for the purchase of land belonging

¶24

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

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.29991 of 2019

¶27

to the petitioner by way of an oral agreement. However, it was not even whispered in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint itself is vitiated and liable to be quashed.

¶28

A perusal of the statutory notice dated 22.08.2015 revealed that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in two parts viz., Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.01.2014 and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 28.01.2014. On the same date, the petitioner had also executed a pro-note for the said sum. Thereafter, the petitioner could not able to repay the said amount and agreed to sell his 1/3^rd share of land in Plot No.20/73 situated at Annai Indra Nagar, 2^nd street, Rajaji Nagar Extension, Villivakkam, Chennai-49, comprised in Survey No.176 bearing Patta No.155, to an extent of 1440 sq.ft by an oral agreement. However, the petitioner failed to sell his 1/3^rd share in the said property. Therefore, the respondent lodged a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It does not require to mention about the subsequent portion of the legal notice in the complaint. The first paragraph of the legal notice is very clear that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and had also executed a pro-note in

¶29

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

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.29991 of 2019

¶32

favour of the respondent. That apart, Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act is very clear that the notice must contain the demand of the cheque amount.

¶33

Therefore, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered to quash the entire proceedings. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2835 of 2015, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. However, t he personal appearance of the petitioner is dispensed with and she shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioner shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing judgment.

¶34

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶35

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

10.10.2023

¶37

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 5

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.29991 of 2019

¶40

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶41

¶42

¶43

The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.29991 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16190 and 16191 of 2019

¶45

10.10.2023

¶46

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

¶47

Page 5 of 5

H.Ramani v. S.Rama Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Ramani v. S.Rama Devi

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

Appavu Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Santhanam Vs R.Sathiyamoorthi

Anny Johnson Vs M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India

A.R.Madhavan Vs the Deputy Registrar of

The Management of Pariyur Vs the Presiding Officer

Velangkanni Vs the State Rep by