9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and, who had already requested the Complainant not to proceed with lodging the Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was ignored by the Complainant. Those facts reminds the Shakespeare's Play Shylock . The Complainant is that on nature which cannot be entertained by the Court. It is a purely abuse of process of Court committed by the Respondent/Complainant. Therefore, in the light of the above, the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant is rejected. Considering the request of the Petitioner to the Complainant while furnishing the cheque to prove the bona fide, it is clearly stated that two cheques had been honoured but three cheques were requested not to be presented till arrangement of funds. Still the Respondent was hasty in presenting the cheque not heeding to the request of the Petitioner - Petition allowed. - Crl.O.P.No.821 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.486 & 489 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2022 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Mohan For the Respondent : Mr. T. Sathiyamoorthy ORDER This Petition has been filed to quash the case in STC.No.383 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal notice dated 02.09.2020 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioners sent a reply dated 10.09.2020 explaining the reasons for the delay to mobilize the funds and promising to pay the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- within three months. 2.2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners mobilized funds by raising loans from their friends and relatives and took a Demand Draft bearing No.671981 dated 16.1.2020 for Rs.25,00,000/- in the name of the Respondent/Defacto Complainant and sent it to him along with a letter dated 16.11.2020 with a request to return the dishonored cheque No.088357 dated 17.08.2020. The amount was realized by the Respondent. In the mean while, inspite of their promise to settle the amount, the Respondent/Defacto Complainant filed a Complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Chidambaram for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and it was taken on file as STC.No.383 of 2020. Summons with D.No.816/2020 dated 18.11.2020 from the said Court with a direction to appear on 31.12.2020 was received by the Petitioners on 20.11.2020. On receipt of the summons, the Petitioners/Accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances, the Accused who decides with the case cannot proceed. It is for the Complainant seeks amount but interests and costs had to be paid since the interests and costs had not been paid by the Petitioners herein. The Petitioners cannot seek the indulgence of the Court to withdraw the Complaint in S.T.C.No.383 of 2020. Only if the interests and costs are paid, the Complainant is ready to withdraw the case. No one has the Authority to direct the Complainant to withdraw the Complaint. 4. On consideration of the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused and the Respondent/Complainant, the reliance placed by the Respondent/Complainant will not help his case. In the reported decisions, after filing of the Complaint, the subject matter of the Complaint was settled, for seeking compounding of all the offences or withdrawal of the Complaint, the Petitioners/Accused has to pay the interests and costs to the Respondent/Complainant. 4.1. The same ruling applied to the facts of the case for the following reasons, the payment of the amount to the Respondent/Complainant during the period of lockdown throughout India which c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icient funds . At that time, he requested not to proceed with the Complaint. Still the Respondent proceeded with the Complaint. On appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate on the first date of hearing, the Accused had furnished all relevant documents regarding proof of the statement of the entire claim. Still, as of right, the Respondent/Complainant insisting further amount from the Accused for compounding offence, as per the reported rulings is found to be unfair practice either by Complainant or by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 4.3. In the reported ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent and the facts of this case are different. After dishonour of cheque, when the Complaint had been filed and pending trial, the Accused had settled the entire amount. Here in this case, the Accused had settled it on the first date of hearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Still the Complainant prevented the Court from proceedings with compounding offence on the basis of a reported ruling which was prevented to the learned Magistrate from ordering the closure of proceeding or by dropping further proceedings. 4.4. Considering the facts with the subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
