9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason Insufficient Funds . Again on the instruction given by the petitioner, the cheques were presented for collection and again and it was dishonored for the reason that Code-5:Kindly contact Drawer/Drawee Bank . After issuing statutory notice, the respondent initiated proceedings for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of NI Act. On receipt of the statutory notice dated 21.03.2019, the petitioner issued reply notices on 03.04.2019 and 05.04.2019. In the reply notice, she stated that the respondent's father, who was practicing advocate at Pondicherry, is well acquainted with the husband of the petitioner herein. Therefore, in the year 2008, the petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs by mortgaging her property to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of Court and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner - Petition allowed. - Crl.O.P.No.4573 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2613 & 2615 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2020 - THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Kripakaran For the Respondent : Mr.Sakthi Manikandan ORDER The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in S.T.C.No.1535 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as NI Act), as against the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O.S.No.1125 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pondicherry. Therefore, the respondent and his father are having acquaintance with the petitioner's husband. In the year 2008, the petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs from the respondent's father for the monthly interest and while borrowing the said loan, the petitioner issued two unfilled signed cheques, drawn at Karnataka Bank Limited. Thereafter, the petitioner discharged the entire loan amount on 12.03.2009 and to that effect, the respondent's father also issued receipt dated 12.03.2009, in favour of the petitioner herein. After discharging the entire loan amount by the petitioner, she repeatedly requested the respondent's father to return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Drawee Bank , Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is clearly attracts as against the petitioner herein. The petitioner was knowing fully well that the cheques are non-CTS cheques and from 01.01.2019 onwards non-CTS cheques cannot be cleared for collection, she has issued the cheques. He further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the same are mixed question of fact and it can be considered only during trial before the trial Court. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the Criminal Original Petition. 4. Heard Mr.A.Kripakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sakthi Manikandan, learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not replied by way of rejoinder. While borrowing the said loan, the petitioner also issued two signed unfilled cheques as security. After discharging the loan amount, the respondent's father also issued acknowledgment that entire loan amount settled by the petitioner. Thereafter the respondent's father failed to return the two cheques, which were received from the petitioner as security. 7. It is also evident from the endorsement made by the respondent's bank while returning the cheques, it is mentioned as Code- 5:Kindly contact Drawer/Drawee Bank . Since the alleged cheques are non-CTS cheques and as such, it cannot be cleared by the banker as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines from 01.01.2019 onwards. It is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturned by directing the respondent to contact a concerned bank and present it again. In short, this endorsement cannot be held to be dishonour of cheque. In the considered view of this Court, the respondent without complying with the requirements of the bank, ought not to have proceeded to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court below went wrong in taking cognizance of the complaint. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted for whatever reason the cheques are returned. In the case on hand, other circumstances are proved that the impugned cheques were issued by the petitioner for security purpose while borrowing the loan, in the year 2008. Therefore, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
