V GEETHA RANI Vs. D DHAMODAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed to call for the records in STC Nos.27 and 840 of 2011, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, (Fast Track Court), Karur and quash the same.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner/accused approached the complainant on 18.04.2010 and 22.08.2010 and borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- respectively for her husband's business, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs.1.00, per Rs.100/- per month and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant. Despite of repeated requests and demand made by the complainant, on 03.10.2010 issued four post dated cheques bearing Nos.061743, 061744 and 061748 for a total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of the said loan, drawn on Bank of India, Saibaha Colony Branch, Coimbatore and when the cheques were presented on 05.02.2011 through the State Bank of India, Karur, it was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" by memorandum, dated 07.02.2011 and therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice, dated 14.02.2011 and even though, the same was received, the petitioner has not come forward to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant filed two private complaints before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, (Fast Track Court), Karur and the same were taken on file as S.T.C.Nos.27 and 840 of 2011. Aggrieved over the same, these criminal original petitions are filed by the petitioner to quash STC Nos.27 and 840 of 2011 respectively.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that 138 of NI Act, proceedings were initiated by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, (Fast Track Court), Karur, but without considering the cheques issued and the cheques presented for realization in some other branch, the Judicial Magistrate has taken the private complaints filed by the complainant on file and since, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karur has no jurisdiction to try the offence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.