SUKANTHI Vs. JOTHI VASANTHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 578/2009 pending on the file of the V metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and he has filed this petition for quashment of the said case. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that the accused. After obtaining hand loan from the complainant, undertook to pay the same with interest @ 18% p.a. and the amount due and payable was Rs. 7,98,500/- and after repeating requests, the accused has issued a cheque dated 20.08.2008 drawn on Canara Bank, Shenoy Nagar Branch, Chennai-30, for a sum of Rs. 5,9,500/- towards part pay ment of the loan amount it is further averred that the said cheque, on presentation on that day itself, returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient" vide memo dated 22.08.2008. Thereafter, a statutory notice was issued on 22.08.2008 for which a reply was sent by the petitioner/accused on 20.09.2008.

(2.) Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the statutory notice material and relevant particulars namely, the date of the cheque, the bank in which it was drawn, have not been disclosed and in the reply issued on behalf of the petitioner/accused at para 6 it has been specifically pointed out that since the notice is bereft of material particulars. The complaint itself is not maintainable and prays for quashment of the same.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. L. Rajasekar learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit and would submit that the accused has sent a reply in response to the statutory notice which would reveal that he is aware of the relevant particulars and in any event, he has not been put to any prejudice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the initial burden lies on the complainant and she is optimistic that she would prove the guilt on the part of the accused and hence prays for dismissal of this petition.