9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the accused to understand the nature of the allegations levelled against him. Hence, the statutory notice at hand cannot be said to be not in consonance with the requirements of the statute. Petition dismissed. - Crl.O.P. No.7637 of 2017 & Crl.M.P. Nos.5523 & 5524 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2018 - P. N. Prakash, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. C.P. Sivamohan for Mr. D. Kumaralingam For the Respondent : Mr. R. Prakasam ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred seeking to call for the records relating to C.C. No.1890 of 2016 on the file of the IV Fast Track Court at George Town, Chennai and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in law. 2 For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruments Act, 1881, the complainant has stated that the accused had borrowed a sum of ₹ 12 lakhs and had issued two cheques for ₹ 5 lakhs each and one cheque for ₹ 2 lakhs; however, in the complaint in C.C. No.1890 of 2016, the complainant has stated that the accused has borrowed a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs and has referred to only 2 cheques for ₹ 5 lakhs each and there is no reference to the cheque for ₹ 2 lakhs; 6 In fine, Mr. Sivamohan, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the statutory demand notice dated 10.06.2016 stands vitiated in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Suman Sethi vs. Ajay K. Churiwal and another [(2000) 2 SCC 380] and therefore, the prosecution founded u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption of three cheques that are said to have been issued by the accused. However, in the complaint in C.C. No.1890 of 2016, the complainant has rested his case only on the two cheques for ₹ 5 lakhs each and has not initiated any prosecution for the cheque for ₹ 2 lakhs. In the body of the complaint, the complainant has stated that the accused has borrowed ₹ 10 lakhs and that he had issued two cheques for ₹ 5 lakhs each. 11 In Suman Sethi (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused, the complainant had issued a notice demanding an amount higher than the amount of the cheque. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the said issue, has laid down in paragraph nos.7 and 8 as under: 7. There is no amb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays time is given to him to make good the amount towards the dishonoured cheque so as to avoid prosecution. 13 In this case, in the statutory notice dated 10.06.2016, the complainant has clearly given the description of the two cheques for ₹ 5 lakhs each. Of course, the complainant has added another cheque for ₹ 2 lakhs and has totally demanded ₹ 12 lakhs from the accused. However, in the complaint and in the sworn statement, the complainant has rested his case only on the two cheques for ₹ 5 lakhs each and has not prosecuted the accused for the dishonour of the third cheque for ₹ 2 lakhs. 14 In the facts and circumstances of this case, one cannot say that the statutory notice dated 10.06.2016 is bereft o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
