MASILAMANI Vs. G RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Masilamani, the petitioner in this petition; seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this. Court under S. 482, Cri. P.C., to quash the proceedings in c.c. No. 1052 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Salem. That criminal case arises out of a complaint given by one Ranganathan who is a partner of M/s. Yuvaraj Corporation, a registered firm, doing money lending business. The case against the petitioner, (who was arrayed as first accused in the complaint) and another, was that both the accused came on 17th August, 1985 and produced post dated cheques with the date 30th September, 1985 for Rs. 9,000 drawn on the Bank of India, Erode and signed by the petitioner, the first accused, as partner of Sri Rajeswari Textiles, and wanted cash. Believing the representation made by the accused and as the second accused was already known to the firm, a sum of Rs. 8,621 was paid after discount and when the cheque was presented for encashment at Lakshmi Vilas Bank on 30th September, 1985, the cheque was returned with an endorsement that Sri Rajeswari Textiles, of which the petitioner was the proprietor, has closed the accounts in the Bank as early as on 28th December, 1983.

(2.) The complainant's case is that both the accused have played fraud on the complainant and made Ranganathan to part with a sum of Rs. 8,621 and both the accused knew even at the time when the cheque was presented that the account of the first accused has been closed with the Bank of India and therefore he has given a complaint which the petitioner seeks to quash.

(3.) The case of the petitioner on the other hand is that the post dated cheque was not dated and that it was given On 30th September, 1982 and not on 30th September, 1985 as alleged in the complaint and that on that date the accounts were nor closed and therefore the criminal case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate given by the complainant should be quashed. The further case of the petitioner is that no money was received in cash. It is also pointed out by the petitioners counsel that Ranganathan, the first respondent has filed a civil suit for recovery of the money and therefore criminal proceeding cannot lie.