The High Court rejected the plea for quashing a cheque dishonour complaint (Section 138 NI Act) asserting that defects in the notice and evidentiary gaps are triable issues for the trial court, not grounds for quashal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17089 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.17089 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.9270 & 9271 of 2021
Raja @ Raja Amarnath ... Petitioner / Accused
Vs.
J.Sumathi
... Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.T.C.No.5175 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the
impugned charge sheet in S.T.C.No.5175 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy.
1/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17089 of 2021
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the respondent are well known to each other. The petitioner intended to purchase a house at Apartment namely, 'Monica Sivalaya'. The total sale consideration of the above said house is Rs.1,02,00,000/-. After paying the amount through cash and bank, he has to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the respondent. For that, he issued a cheque dated 29.07.2019 drawn on the bank of Axis Bank, Srirangam Branch. The respondent presented the said cheque before her Bank on the same day itself and the same was returned on 30.07.2019 with an endorsement of “Funds Insufficient”. So, the respondent issued a legal notice on 07.08.2019 and the same was received by the petitioner on 09.08.2019. Though, he has not sent any reply and made any payment. In such circumstances, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy. The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the complaint on file in S.T.C.No.5175 of 2019. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.
2/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17089 of 2021
3/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17089 of 2021
complaint on file in S.T.C.No.5175 of 2019. The points raised by the petitioner are the triable issues and the same has to be decided only by the trial Court. The petitioner is having right to put forth his defence. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.06.2024
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order dss
4/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17089 of 2021
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.4, Trichy.
5/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17089 of 2021
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
dss
Crl.O.P(MD)No.17089 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.9270 & 9271 of 2021
12.06.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the defects pointed out in the statutory notice and lack of documentary proof for the underlying transaction warrant quashing of the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.Sivagnanam Vs. RajaReferred¶23
G.Sivagnanam Vs. Raja
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raja @ Raja Amarnath
J.Sumathi
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
