Dismissed

B.Prabhakar v. a.Uma Saraswathi

Madras HC28 Oct 2024CRL OP/26700/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the complaint clearly established the petitioner's liability as a cheque signatory for a dischargeable debt, rejecting arguments of lack of privity or misuse of a lost cheque.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

B.Prabhakar Vs a.Uma Saraswathi — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.26700 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.26700 of 2024

¶7

& Crl.M.P.Nos.14822 & 14821 of 2024

¶8

The Treasurer, M/s.Andavar Educational Society, Rep. by the Former Treasurer, B.Prabhakar (M/49), No.16/28, 1 st Cross Street, Ratchur, Karaikal – 609 602. ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 /versus/

¶9

Mrs.A.Uma Saraswathi, ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., pleased t o call for the records in S.T.C.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karaikal and quash the same as far as the petitioner herein and pass orders.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Padmanabhan

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner herein is the 2 nd accused in S.T.C.No.104 of 2024 on

¶14

the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karaikkal.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.26700 of 2024

¶18

2. The complaint under Section 138 of N.I filed against this petitioner and two others. Alleging that there is no averment in the complaint against this petitioner and the cheque lost by one of the member been misused by the complainant, the complaint is sought to be quashed.

¶19

3 . The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no privity between the complainant and the Society. Admittedly, the money was borrowed by one Mrs.G.Chitra/3 rd accused. When statutory notice issued by the complainant, same was suitably replied by this petitioner informing him that, one of the member of the petitioner's Educational Society, namely, Mrs.G.Chitra who borrowed money from the complainant had discharged the debt. However, the cheque lost by Mrs.G.Chitra been misused to prosecute the petitioner and Mrs.G.Chitra. Therefore, there is enough material to show that the cheque was not issued to discharge any liability of the petitioner and therefore, complaint to be quashed.

¶20

4 . This Court, on perusing the record and the complaint finds that the specific case of the complainant is that the 3 rd accused/Chitra borrowed loan of Rs.20 lakhs on behalf of M/s.Andavar Educational Society and executed pro-

¶21

note assuring to repay the said amount with 24% interest within a period of 12

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.26700 of 2024

¶24

months. The said pro-note dated 09.12.2021 executed by the 3 rd accused not discharged within the time promised and the interest also not paid promptly.

¶25

After repeated demand to repay the loan amount, the petitioner Society came forward to issue the cheque No.44818, dated 28.07.2023 for Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶26

5. The petitioner herein who is the Treasurer of the Bank has issued a cheque from the account maintained by the Society. Thus, the liability of the petitioner as a signatory of the cheque and the cheque issued to discharge the enforceable debt been clearly spoken in the complaint and therefore, the petition to quash is unsustainable. The disputed facts which are now placed before this Court are to be tested during the trial and therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate the cause during trial by leading evidence.

¶27

6. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶28

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶29

28.10.2024 Index : Yes/No. Neutral Citation : Yes/No. bsm To, 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karaikal

¶30

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

¶31

3/4

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.26700 of 2024

¶33

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶34

bsm

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.26700 of 2024

¶36

28.10.2024

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

B.Prabhakar v. a.Uma Saraswathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Prabhakar v. a.Uma Saraswathi

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

R.Shanthi Vs Murugesan

M.Jayanthi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Stany Thekaekara Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

R.S. Mangayarkarasi, Vs Mr. S. Devarajan

Thiruthangal Nadar Vidyalaya Vs the State Rep by Its

Paranjothi Vs the District Superindent of Police