In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a cheque dishonour case, the Madurai Bench dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court acted right in taking cognizance and that a prima facie case existed to subject the petitioner to trial.
Petition Crl.O.P(MD).No.5797 of 2021 dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.5797 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Crl.O.P(MD).No.5797 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.3348 of 2021
Yuvaraj
... Petitioner
Vs.
H.Abdul Hameed
... Respondent
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in STC.No.119 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I (Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level), Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P. Ganapathisubramanian For Respondent : M/s. Yasmin Begum for M/s. Ajmal Associates
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed to call for the
entire records in STC.No.119 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I (Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level), Madurai and
1/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.5797 of 2021
quash the same.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the manufacturer of “Air Freshener” and he is doing business in the name of “Taj Air Marketing”. The petitioner herein has purchased the said products from the complainant for the last three years and paid the amount on installment. When the respondent asked the petitioner for the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, the petitioner herein has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, and the same was returned as “in-sufficient funds” by the Karur Vysa Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai on 22.08.2021. Based on the complaint given by the respondent, case has been taken on file in STC.No.119 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I (Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level), Madurai for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has never issued a cheque to the respondent / complainant and also the cheque filed by the respondent was not at all signed by the
2/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.5797 of 2021
petitioner. He further submitted that since the complaint reveals that the dispute is of commercial in nature, the respondent ought to have taken steps as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and he prayed to allow this petition.
6.Time and again, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has cautioned the courts about the necessary precautions to be taken while quashing the charge sheet at the initial stage. Useful reference in this regard can be had to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426).
3/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.5797 of 2021
7.In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly taken the case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if he is subjected to due trial as sufficient opportunity would be given to the petitioner to put forth his defence. The petitioner cannot be let by quashing the charge framed against him as that would completely undermine the alleged acts, which
is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against him.
18.06.2024
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order trp
4/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.5797 of 2021
To
The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I (Fast Track Court at Magistrate Level), Madurai
5/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.5797 of 2021
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Trp
Crl.O.P(MD).No.5797 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.3348 of 2021
18.06.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of proceedings STC.No.119 of 2020 in cheque dishonour case is maintainable.
Whether the dispute being commercial in nature justifies quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426)Referred¶29
State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yuvaraj
H.Abdul Hameed
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
