G. DORAIRAJ Vs. J JANABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as the complainant and accused respectively.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that the accused was his colleague in the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and on that acquaintance, she availed a hand loan of Rs.3,30,000/- from him and executed a promissory note dated 10.11.2014 (Ex.P.1); the accused did not pay interest for the said loan and ultimately, when the complainant started pressurising her, she gave a post dated cheque for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- bearing the date 16.01.2016 (Ex.P.2); though the cheque was dated 16.01.2016, at the request of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque only on 28.03.2016 for clearance; the cheque was dishonoured on the ground 'funds insufficient' vide return memo (Ex.P.3); hence, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice dated 31.03.2016 (Ex.P.4), which was received by the accused vide Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6; however, the accused neither replied to the notice nor complied with the demand made in it and therefore, the complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C. No.5846 of 2016 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (FTC No.1), Egmore at Allikulam under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity 'the NI Act').