V RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. R ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C.No. 165 of 1993, on the file of the Judicial MagistrateNo. 6, Coimbatore, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. THE short facts are : THE respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as "the Act"), THE allegations in it are briefly as follows : For the debt due, on September 15, 1992, the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs. 4, 00, 000 dated February 15, 1993. THE complainant presented the cheque on February 17, 1993, through Central Bank, Peelamedu. It was returned with a memo "payment countermanded" on February 18, 1993. Without providing sufficient funds, with a view to cheat, the accused had given instructions to countermand the payment. THE complainant sent the statutory notice on March 3, 1993. After giving the reasons that the accused was not available in his address, it was returned on March 13, 1993. THE accused had deliberately evaded the receipt of the notice.

(2.) HENCE the complaint. Mr. K. Mohanram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the complaint is liable to be quashed on the following grounds : 1. The cheque was returned with a memo, "payment countermanded" and it could not be an offence under section 138 of the Act, 2. The notice was returned and not served on the accused and only in a case where the notice was served on the accused, the requirements for making out an offence under section 138 would be completed.

(3.) IN A. B. Steels v. Coromandel Steel Products [1992] 1 MWN (Crl) 55 a similar question was considered. IN that case, the allegations in the complaint are as follows (at page 764) :