9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em not to present the cheques obtained at the time of borrowing the loan viz., in the year 2003 and 2004 for collection as they were not issued in discharging of any liability. The alleged cheques were not issued for any legally enforceable debt. It is also proved from the notice dated 22.11.2005 that the said alleged cheques and other pronotes were obtained by the respondent/complainant at the time of borrowal of loan in the year 2003 and 2004. Therefore, the alleged cheques were not issued by the petitioner for any legally enforceable debt. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be subjected to ordeal trial. The complaint cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed - petition allowed. - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19235 of 2013 An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not pay the cheque amount and hence, the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal had taken cognizance for the offences under Section 138 of Negotioable Instrument Act against the petitioner and it is pending for trial. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that according to the case of the respondent, the petitioner and his mother borrowed a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- on 02.04.2004 on execution of a mortgage deed. Thereafter, without repaying the same, on 02.05.2007, again, the petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/-. Therefore, when the first loan itself is pending, the further loan as alleged by the respondent herein it not at all possible and it is unbelievable. 4.The learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent issued reply notice dated 02.12.2005 and he simply denied the averments made in the notice dated 22.11.2005 and no specific denial of receipt of signed blank cheques from the petitioner and his mother. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that this quash petition is filed on disputed question of facts and the petitioner raised factual defences and as such, it cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He would further contend that the respondent never admitted the notice dated 22.11.2005 and disputing the contents noticed in the said notice. Therefore, it has to be gone into by full fledged trial and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 4 lakhs and put their signatures in blank pronote forms. At that time my client No.2 signed two blank cheques on State Bank of India, Main Branch, Trichy as demanded by you. 3.In April 2004, my clients were in need of money of ₹ 15 lakhs. They approached you for a loan of ₹ 15 Lakhs. As usual you agreed to lend money deducting ₹ 5 lakhs being interest for two years and offered to give cash of ₹ 10 lakhs. You again wanted my clients to execute blank pronotes and cheques. As my clients were hard pressed for money, they agreed to comply with all the unjust demands made by you. My client No.2 signed in 3 blank pronote forms and my client No.1 gave 5 signed blank cheques on Canara Bank, Puducottai branch on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion against you under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Prevention of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act and other relevant acts in the Criminal Court. Please refrain from threatening my clients. Otherwise legal action will be taken against you. You are also hereby informed not to present the above mentioned cheques for collection as they were not issued in discharge of any liability. After receipt of the same, the respondent issued reply notice dated 02.12.2005, wherein, except the general denial of the notice dated 22.11.2005, no specific denial of receipt of the blank signed pronotes and blank signed cheques from the petitioner and his mother. Therefore, it is construed that the alleged cheque bearing No.0544530 dated 16.05.2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses 458 Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao V. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that quashing of criminal complaint on disputed question of facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is unwarranted and it has to be gone into by full fledged trial by the trial Court. Further, it has been held that the post dated cheques described as 'security' towards repayment of instalment of already disbursed loan amount, proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act is maintainable, in case of dishonour of such cheques. 10.It is seen from the facts and circumstances of this case, though it is disputed questions of facts, from seeing the notice dated 22.11.2005 and the reply notice dated 02.12.2005, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
