Allowed

R.Sudhakar v. R.Kavitha

Madras HC17 Apr 2023CRL OP/32301/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of a private complaint. The court held that petitioners who guaranteed payment but did not issue the dishonoured cheques could not be prosecuted under Section 138 NI Act. Regarding Section 420 IPC, the court found the act was merely a breach of promise due to a commercial dispute, not fraud, and quashed the complaint against petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; complaint against petitioners quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

R.Sudhakar Vs R.Kavitha — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.32301 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P. No. 32301 of 2019 and Crl.M.P. No. 17760 & 17761 of 2019

¶7

1.R.Sudhakar

¶8

2.Usharani ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

R.Kavitha ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the case pending in C.C.No.221 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, at Thiruvannamalai and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. S.Silambu Selvan for Mr. B.S.Ramesh

¶13

For Respondent : Mr. R.Venkata Subban M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates.

¶14

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

¶15

1/7

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.32301 of 2019

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petition is to quash the private complaint for the offences

¶19

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of IPC.

¶20

It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent had supplied

¶21

goods to the 1^st accused to the value of Rs.36,65,161/-; that the 1^st accused had paid only a sum of Rs.18,86,000/- out of the said amount; that the petitioners along with the 1^st accused had promised to pay the balance amount of a sum of Rs.17,79,161/-; that the 1^st accused had issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and Rs.9,47,161/respectively, towards discharge of the said liability. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the said cheques were presented for collection of money, the cheques were returned for the reason 'account closed' ; that the petitioners are liable for the offence under Section 420 IPC along with the 1^st accused because they undertook to pay the

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.32301 of 2019

¶25

balance amount due by the 1^st accused to the respondent.

¶26

(i). The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

¶27

the impugned complaint as against the petitioners is not maintainable. Admittedly, the cheques were issued by the 1^st accused and the petitioners have nothing to do with the account held by the 1^st accused. Hence, the petitioners are not liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶28

(ii). The learned counsel would submit that as regards offence

¶29

under Section 420 of IPC, it is seen that from the allegation is that the respondent had supplied goods worth Rs.36,65,161/- to the 1^st accused and the 1^st accused paid only a portion of the said amount. Even accepting the said allegations to be true, the petitioners cannot be held liable for the offence under section 420 of IPC for promising the respondent that they would guarantee the payment of balance money by the 1^st accused. The petitioners are therefore not liable for the offence under section 420 of IPC.

¶30

3/7

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.32301 of 2019

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the petitioners may not be liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, they would be liable for the offence under Section 420 of IPC since they had given written undertaking that they would ensure that the 1^st accused pays the amount due to the respondent. The cheques issued by the 1^st accused were returned for the reason 'account closed' . Therefore, the petitioners who had guaranteed the payment of balance money by the 1^st accused to the respondent are liable for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

¶34

This Court on perusal of the impugned complaint finds that this is the case of commercial transaction between the 1^st accused and the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent had supplied goods to the 1^st accused and the 1^st accused had paid only a portion of the amount due by him to the respondent. As regards the balance payment, the 1^st accused had issued two cheques, which were dis-honoured for the reason 'account closed' . The only allegation against the petitioners is

¶35

4/7

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.32301 of 2019

¶38

that they had guaranteed the due repayment by the 1^st accused to the respondent. It is also seen that there is a dispute with regard to the quality of the goods. On the basis of the allegation of the complaint, it is clear that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The facts reveal that the petitioners have not deceived the complainant in any manner so as to attract the offence of Section 420 of IPC. Merely because the petitioners had undertaken to make payment by the 1^st accused, they cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The act of the petitioners at best would amount to breach of promise. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the complaint, in so far as the petitioners alone are concerned.

¶39

In the result, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶40

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Tract Court at

¶41

Thiruvannamalai, is directed to conduct the Trial in respect of the 1^st

¶42

5/7

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.32301 of 2019

¶45

accused as expeditiously as possible and complete the same preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order .

¶46

17.04.2023

¶47

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No kan

¶48

To The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Tract Court, Thiruvannamalai.

¶49

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.32301 of 2019

¶51

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶52

kan

¶53

Crl.O.P.No. 32301 of 2019

¶54

17.04.2023

¶55

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

¶56

7/7

R.Sudhakar v. R.Kavitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sudhakar v. R.Kavitha

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

Harinath Vs State Rep.by

S.Panneerselvam Vs State Rep.by

K.Rukmani Vs M/S.Rishabh Triexim LLP

Naresh Jain Vs State Rep.by

Balamurugan Vs the Food Safety Officer

Lavanya Vs M/S.Sarvesh Exports