R KALA Vs. USHA SAMPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1149 of 2002 on the file of the Court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

(2.) On a perusal of the materials placed on record, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on averments that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- for her business development; that for discharging the liability, the petitioner issued three cheques dated 5.7.2001 respectively for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- in favour of the respondent; that when she presented the above said cheques in Nedunkadi Bank Ltd.,Mylapore Branch, on 5.7.2001, they were dishonoured on the same day with an endorsement "Exceeds arrangements"; that at the request of the petitioner, the respondent again represented the 3 cheques on 27.11.2001 for collection, but again they were returned on the same day with an endorsement "Accounts called up"; that the respondent sent a lawyer's notice dated 10.12.2001 and the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the notice, but she did not come forward to settle the cheques amount; that the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet has taken on file the above complaint in C.C.No.1149 of 2002.

(3.) Now the petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Original Petition praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1149 of 2002 on the file of the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,Chennai on grounds that the cause of action for filing the present complaint has been lapsed since the period of one month after service of notices dated 11.7.2001 on the petitioner/accused had expired at the time of taking cognizance of the offence alleged; that the respondent/complainant issued 2nd statutory notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 10.12.201 after representing the cheques, which were the subject matter of earlier statutory notice dated 11.7.2001; that in case of cheque dishonour, the cause of action arises only once; that Section 138(c) r/w 142(b) envisages only one cause of action in respect of one and the same cheque; that since the respondent/complainant has forfeited her right to again present the cheques as such the complaint is barred by time.