9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Magistrate No.II, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) Madurai. According to the complaint the petitioner approached the respondent and obtained a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in April 2015 and that amount was repaid with interest as Rs.1,20,000/-. According to the complaint the petitioner is known to the respondent and he had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the respondent on 21.04.2016. Thereafter on 01.12.2016 the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and remaining Rs.2,30,000/- has to be paid within six months , but the petitioner failed to repay the same. While so, on 12.08.2019 the petitioner gave a cheque( Allahabad Bank Cheque No. 544904) for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- and the same was presented for collection on 13.08.2019 but the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file and thereby the charge sheet in S.T.C. No. 17 of 2020 is liable to be quashed. 3. The respondent has not appeared before this Court. Already notice served. Inspite of that none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent has filed a false case against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the respondent on 21.04.2016. Thereafter on 01.12.2016 he paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and remaining Rs.2,30,000/- have to be paid within six months. Thereafter the petitioner has not repaid the balance amount and thereby the respondent approached the petitioner and he issued a cheque dated 13.08.2019 and when the same was presented for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was repaid in the year 2015 itself. At the time of borrowal of the said amount the cheque was handed over to the respondent for security purpose. Thereafter the above said cheque was misused by the respondent but there is no document to substantiate that contention. However the complainant averred in the complaint that on the date of borrowal of amount is on 21.04.2016 cheque was issued on 13.08.2019 i.e., after the period of three years i.e.,after the limitation period. When there are averments in the complaint that on 01.12.2019 the part amount was paid there is no record to show that the above said amount was paid on 01.12.2016. Therefore the above said repayment on 01.12.2016 as alleged in the petition would not amount to acknowledgem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racted. The relevant observations made in this regard in the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder: - "We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We have perused the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1994 confirming the judgment/order of acquittal passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thalassery in Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 1992 holding inter alia that the cheque in question having been issued by the accused for due which was barred by limitation the penal provision under Section 138of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not attracted in the case. On the facts of the case as available on the records and the clear and unambiguous provision in the explanation to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
