P KISHORE KUMAR Vs. G MURALIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.9425 of 2006 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai seeks to quash proceedings in such case.

(2.) THE said case has been filed by the respondent/complainant against six persons informing that the 2nd accused is his brother and apart from other business, the 2nd accused and the respondent/complainant as also their father had been running a business under the name of 'Jolly Wines' at Kilpauk, Chennai from 1989. Though, earlier the license to the said business stood in the name of the 2nd accused, the same was transferred to that of the respondent/complainant from the year 2001. Moneys were borrowed for the family business mainly by the 2nd accused from the 1st accused who was a financier. On the instructions of the 2nd accused, the respondent/complainant had issued over 100 cheque leaves in blank from the account of 'Jolly Wines' to the financier, the 1st accused. 24 of such cheques had been encashed. Unused cheques numbering 76 have been retained by the 1st accused. All the cheques were given in the year 2002 and the business of running the wine shop was closed due to Government take over in September 2003. THE 2nd accused shifted the entire liability of the family business to the respondent/ complainant taking advantage of the fact that the license stood in his name. THE 1st and 2nd accused acting in collusion with accused 3 to 6 were making false claims against the respondent/complainant by filling up the blank cheques in the name of the certain unknown persons, presenting the cheques and subsequently, proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as Act). As regards the notice of demand issued under Section 138 of the Act by accused 3 to 6, the respondent/complainant states that he had nothing to do with such persons and such persons acting in collusion with accused 1 and 2 had falsely filled up the cheques issued in blank and were making false claims thereupon.

(3.) THE above contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have heard Mr.S.J.Jagadev, learned counsel for the respondent on the submissions made by Mr.D.Aruna, learned counsel for the petitioner.