9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 of 2010 on the private complaint filed by the respondent/complainant pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Coimbatore for the offences under Sections 406, 467 and 471 IPC. 3.The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent used to recommend certain third parties to the father of the 1st petitioner, Duraisamy, who was a money lender and used to advance loans to the third parties, for which the respondent stood as guarantor, for which he gave some unfilled signed blank cheques, inchoate pronotes and unfilled blank papers. In one such transaction, the complainant had executed seven promissory notes for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the 1st petitioner s father and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent in C.C.No.74 of 2008, which was pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Dindigul. Later it was transferred to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court-VI, Coimbatore and numbered as C.C.No.71 of 2009. The 3rd petitioner, who had received a cheque from the 1st petitioner bearing No.713679 had presented the same in Pollachi and as the cheque got dishonored he issued a legal notice dated 16-10-2008 to the respondent. 6.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is an admitted case of the respondent that cheques were entrusted to the 1st petitioner s father and hence, there is no question of committing criminal breach of trust. Hence, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over four unfilled signed cheques as security for financing one R.Selvaraj. He further states that as the pronotes expired they were renewed during 1999 upto 2002. Except for the loan of Selvaraj, other loans were cleared and the said Selvaraj was directly dealing with the late V.Duraisamy and he had also pledged his property. The late Duraisamy had informed the said Selvaraj that the cheques were misplaced and assured to return once found. Hence on 17-07-2003, stop payment for the four cheques was given to the bank by the respondent. 11.On 22-07-2004, the 1st petitioner s father Duraisamy expired and on 25-04-2005, 138 statutory notice was issued on behalf of the 1st petitioner to the respondent for cheque No.713676 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elvaraj, it is seen that upto June 2002 the Pronotes have been revalidated and the said Pronotes have been produced in the 138 case by the 1st petitioner. It is also to be noted though the respondent had given a stop payment for the 4 cheques bearing Nos.713676 to 713679 to his bankers on 17-07-2003, mentioning about handing over of 4 cheques to the 1st petitioner s father late V.Duraisamy Naidu and the liabilities have been discharged. This important contention of the respondent have not been made known to the 1st petitioner s father till his death on 22-10-2004 or till such time till he received the 138 notices with regard to these cheques. Hence, it leads to inference that the respondent in view to create defence for the 138 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure and no proof for discharge of the cheque amount has been produced, the contention of forgery and cheating cannot be said to be made out. The responsibility of the magistracy lie in finding out whether the alleged accused could be legally responsible for the offence charged for. The Court at that stage circumspect and by exercising judicious mind by taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration ought to have taken the complaint on file, lest the private compliant would be an instrument of vendetta which the lower court fail to take into account. 18.From the above reading of the complaint as a whole it appears that on consideration of the allegations and in light of the statement made on oath both by the complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
