BINDU INDUSTRIES Vs. SOUNDARYA LEASING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.Nos.4913 and 4914 of 1999 on the file of the Court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, have come forward to file both the above criminal original petitions against one and the same respondent, who is the complainant in both the matters before the trial Court, praying to call for the records in both the above Calendar Cases from file of the trial Court and quash the same.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above criminal original petitions coming to be filed, the petitioners/accused would submit that the respondent/complainant has filed both the above calendar cases against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds to the extent of Rs.66,000/= in the first case and Rs.60,000/= in the second case above; that subsequently, three witnesses have been examined in each case and the above cases are now posted for the examination of the defence witnesses; that under these circumstances, the respondent/complainant has filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to re-call P.W.1 viz. the representative of the complainant company, which according to these petitioners, to introduce certain new documents and to influx new evidence after cross-examination of P.W.1; that in spite of the petitioners filing a detailed counter stiffly opposing the application, the trial Court, by its order dated 5.9.2002, allowed the said application and therefore the petitioner, contending that he being a permanent resident of Bangalore could not adduce evidence on the defence side immediately and sought time for the same, but the trial Court refused to grant further time for defence witness and posted the matter on 22.1.2003 and that the complaints themselves are totally unsustainable in law inasmuch as the accused did not issue the cheques in question in favour of the complainant etc., has come forward to file both the above criminal original petitions praying for the reliefs extracted supra.

(3.) No counter would be filed on the part of the respondent, but the learned counsel for the respondent would argue on instructions and therefore this Court is to pass orders based on the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both.