ILAKKIA Vs. T.UMAMAHESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.670 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as against the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a sole accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that the respondent is an Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in so many matters. While being so, the respondent and his brother cheated the petitioner to the tune of Rs.7.00 lakhs and also misused the cheque issued by the petitioner herein and filed false case as against him with concocted stories. The alleged cheque was presented for collection before the Indian Bank, Madras High Court Branch, whereas the complaint has been lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Chengalpattu, without any jurisdiction. Therefore the complaint is liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction. He also relied upon the judgment reported in (2016) 2 SCC 75 in the case of Bridgestone India Private Limited Vs. Inderpal Singh in this regard. He further submitted that the statutory notice issued by the respondent did not fulfil the procedures laid down under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The notice is a defective one and the seven days time has been given for the repayment, instead of 15 days as contemplated under the Act.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though the respondent is being an Advocate for the petitioner herein, on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent paid fine amount for the offence committed by the petitioner under vehicle theft case. Further the petitioner involved other two cheque cases in S.T.C.No.1293 of 2016 and S.T.C.No.106 of 2018. In those cases, the respondent appeared and also he spent so much of money on behalf of the petitioner herein. While being so, for his business development and also for his personal expenditure, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.24.00 lakhs from the respondent and also assured that he will pay interest to the said amount. He also executed pronote to that effect on 31/3/2017. Towards the repayment of the said amount, the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.9,45,000.00 on 28/7/2019 and the same was presented for collection and the same was returned dishonour for the reason the "Exceeds Arrangements". After issuing statutory notice, he lodged the present complaint for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that all the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., and all are mixed question of fact. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.