9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent lodged complaint as against the petitioner herein under Section 138 of NI Act. He further submitted that the petitioner was already instructed the respondent not to present the cheque by the communication dated 20.06.2018 and even then the respondent presented the cheque for collection on 15.09.2018. He further submitted that the petitioner already filed application to declare himself as insolvent and the same also taken on file by the learned Principal District Judge, Srivilliputtur in I.P.No.5 of 2018. In fact the petitioner also issued notice dated 20.06.2018, and categorically informed about the pendency of the insolvency proceedings and called upon the respondent not to deposit the cheques which were obtained under thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,86,00,000/- to the respondent herein. Hence, the petitioner had entered into an agreement on 24.04.2018 and he agreed to pay the due amount. In order to pay the part of the above amount, the petitioner issued cheque for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The said cheque was present for collection and the same was returned dishonour for the reason that "Funds insufficient". It was duly informed to the petitioner herein and after his instruction, the cheque was once again presented for collection. Again it was returned dishonour for the reason that "Drawer's signature differ". Therefore after issuing statutory notice, respondent initiated the present proceedings for the offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act as against the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law. 8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows: "19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .............. 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................." The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1487 of 2019 on the file of IV Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. Accordingly, this criminal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
