9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint has been made with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance in view to spite for the 138 cases initiated by the petitioners against the respondent. The proceedings were initiated as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Crl.O.P.No.13958 of 2010, M.P.No.1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2018 - M. Nirmal Kumar, J. For the Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Vivekanandhan For the Respondent : Mr.K.Raju ORDER This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in C.C.No.137 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not returned, since the father of the 1st petitioner had expired on 22-10-2004, the respondent was trying to get back the cheques but of no avail. Thereafter, the respondent had instructed his bankers to stop payment for these four cheques. 5.The 1st petitioner with ill motive to extract money had filled up the blank cheque bearing No.713676 for a sum of ₹ 5,39,000/- and presented for encashment as the cheque got dishonoured the 1st petitioner had filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent in C.C.No.166 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court VI, Coimbatore. Further, the 1st petitioner, who was in illegal possession of cheques handed over a cheque No.713677 to the 2nd peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint in C.C.No.137 of 2010. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are relying upon the following citations:- SUNIL KUMAR VS. ESCORT YAMAHA MOTORS LTD., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 468; EICHER TRACTORS LTD. ,AND ANOTHER VS. HARIHAR SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 16 SCC Cases 763; and MAHENDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD., VS. RAJIV DHUBEY reported in (2009)1 SCC 706. 9.The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the 1st petitioner s father (late) Duraisamy came into contact with the respondent in the year 1989. The respondent had introduced the 3rd parties for the money lending done by the said late Duraisamy during the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent that the remaining blank cheque No.713678 would be presented in a bank in other state which would further cause harassment to the petitioner which made the respondent to file the private complaint against the petitioners. The respondent had filed a typed set and had reiterated that what are all stated in the private complaint and had contended that the lower Court on examination of the respondent and one R.Selvaraj and coming to conclusion that prima facie offence is made out had taken the complaint on file against the petitioners and it needs no interference. 13.The learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon a Citation reported in (2006)6 SCC Cases 736 in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd., and others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he had repaid the loans to the 1st petitioner and had taken a letter stating that there are no dues to him. This letter has not been produced and no reason has been given for the same. Further, it could be seen that the lower court without looking into any of the documents and getting satisfied by order dated 01-03-2010 in M.P.No.7510 of 2009, without any cogent reasoning except for reproducing the statement of respondent and the said Selvaraj and without any basis states that prima facie case has been made out. In view of the same, the cognizance taken by the lower court is perverse. 17.It is not in dispute that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending between the petitioners and the respondent, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o spite for the 138 cases initiated by the petitioners against the respondent. 19.The citation referred by the respondent in the facts and circumstances to the case is not relevant. 20.The case in hand squarely falls within the parameters indicated in Bhajanlal case. The factual scenario as noted above clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, Proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, Coimbatore stands quashed. 21.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
