9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that before expiry of 45 days from the date of return of cheques the complaint had been filed. Sufficient time had to be given to the Accused to respond to the notice. Therefore, from the date of issue of statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 45 days time is granted to file private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (138 to be read) 3. The Respondent had filed complaints in STC Nos. 416, 417, 418 and 419 of 2018 for the cheque bearing No. 039085, dated 05.02.2012, for the amount of Rs. 5,04,870/-; for the cheques bearing No. 039079, 039080, 039081 and 039082, dated 28.01.2012, 29.01.2012, 30.01.2012 and 31.01.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Complaint, the Petitioner had not replied. Before the reply, the complaints were filed. Therefore, the complaints are the premature complaints and the same have to be quashed. 5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following rulings: 5.1. In the case of Vijay Chaudhary vs. Gyan Chand Jain reported in 2008 (104) DRJ 349 wherein the High Court of Delhi has held as under: "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138-- Payment stopped because of attachment of the bank account by an order of the Court-- When the cheque is dishonoured for ostensible reasons different from those specifically provided under the Act, it is necessary to establish that the ostensible reason is one attributable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 138-- Complaint under section 138 filed by complainant without placing all material facts before court-- Order directing cheques to be returned to the drawer-- Order not challenged and attained finality-- Cheque dishonoured on presentation-- In the facts and circumstances prosecution under section 138 quashed-- Prosecution of petitioner quashed." 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the case is of the year 2012. When the case is part-heard stage after examination of the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner herein, who is facing the criminal trial, had been playing dilatory tactics before the trial Court. The Complainant proceeded marking of the evidence and the evidence is completed under Section 313 Cr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, this Court has to allow the trial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the matter. In other words, the case before the trial Court, which is in part-heard stage, can, in no way, be quashed and if any order of quashment is passed, it would be classically improper. Hence, it is not proper for this Court, to exercise the power, conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the light of the illuminating judicial pronouncements and in view of the circumstances available in this case, no valid ground is made out to interfere with or disturb the proceedings in C.C. No. 104 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sathiamanagalam, and the said case has to come to its logical conclusion." 7.3. In the unreported decision of this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missing of cheques was given only on 19.12.2013. Had it been true, the petitioner would have thought it fit to give complaint during 2011 itself. Though the date of occurrence was between 2011 and March 2012, the complaint was given on 19.12.2013 much after the issuance of statutory notice. That being so, this court is not inclined to accept the theory as put forth before this court, to quash the proceedings. In my considered view, the same is available by way of defence to the accused to be agitated before the trial court and the truthfulness or otherwise of such theory cannot be gone into by this court in this quash petition, which is summary in nature." 8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent furnished copy of the Criminal Original Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n/the Accused before the trial Court, it is found that he had not replied to the statutory notice issued by the Respondent. If the accounts of the Petitioner had been blocked by the Income Tax Authorities, he ought to have informed the Respondent/Complainant regarding the blocking of the account by the Income Tax Authorities. Therefore, the cheques need not be presented. In the alternative, after issuance of the cheques by the Petitioner herein when the accounts of the Petitioner were blocked by the Income Tax Authorities, the Petitioner herein as Accused before the Trial Court ought to have informed the Respondent/Complainant to return the cheques as the accounts had been blocked. If after issuance of the cheques and the account had been b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
