K.GOWSALYA Vs. P.KUMARASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Kovilpatti.

(2.) Fact:- The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.91 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Kovilpatti. The respondent, as the complainant, filed the complaint under Ss. 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner based on the dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner dtd. 27/1/2020. According to the complainant, this petitioner is working at TVS Credit Service at Nungambakkam. Her husband Kumaran and the complainant are known persons. On 1/6/2019, the petitioner approached the complainant and demanded a loan of Rs.7,00,000.00 to meet their family expenses. On 9/6/2019, the complainant gave Rs.7,00,000.00 to the petitioner as a loan and obtained promissory notes. The petitioner agreed to repay the said amount within six months. Since the petitioner has not repaid the amount, the complainant approached the petitioner for repayment of the loan on 29/9/2019. At that time, the petitioner gave a cheque of Kodak Mahindra Bank bearing No.000057 dtd. 27/1/2020 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000.00. When the said cheque was presented on 28/1/2020, before the Kovilpatti Karur Vaisya Bank, the same was returned as "stop payment". Hence, after sending a legal notice, the complainant filed the case. To quash the said complaint, the petitioner/accused has filed this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted the while taking cognizance of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not followed the procedures as contemplated under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. Though the complainant himself has admitted that he is a financier, he failed to produce any document before the Court to show that the loan given to the petitioner was reflected in his income tax return and not give the source of such a huge amount having been advanced as a loan and complied with the provision of Sec. 9 of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act 1957. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing the First Information Report. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on Judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Misra vs. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki (2009 Cr.L.J 3777) and in the case of Ganesh vs. Lokchand Shriram Bondre (Crl.A.No.259 of 2014) and another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehmood ul Rehman vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & another [(2015) 12 SCC 420].