N. MOHAN Vs. P. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.343, 347, 348 and 350 of 2016,pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. I (Fast Track Court) Karur.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even on reading of the complaint, it is clear that the respondent refers to a borrowal, which happened in the year 2009. Subsequently, the respondent has deposited the cheque in the year 2014. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when the cheque was deposited, there was no existing debt or liability on that date, since the alleged loan itself has become time barred.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent refers to an agreement on 04.02.2014. Even though the respondent refers to the said agreement, the respondent does not even state as to what was the amount that was agreed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Therefore, except for a bare statement to the effect that there was an agreement on the part of the petitioner to pay an amount, there is nothing to indicate as to what was the amount that was agreed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.