MOHANAN Vs. TATER FINANCE SYNDICATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.No.769/2004, pending on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, has come forward with this present petition under Section 482 for quashing the said criminal proceedings.

(2.) THE above said case was taken on file by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai based on the private complaint of the Respondent herein for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. THE complaint was preferred based on the dishonour of a cheque dated 12.09.2003 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Trivandrum bearing Cheque No.059357 for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. According to the averments found in the complaint when the cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". On receipt of the banker's memo dated 26.09.2003 intimating the dishonour of the cheque necessary demand was made by issuing a statutory notice. After waiting for the expiry of the statutory time, the complaint has been preferred as the demand made in the notice was not complied with.

(3.) BESIDES reiterating the ground of attack contained in the Criminal Original Petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that a suit filed based on a Promissory Note allegedly executed by the Petitioner herein in discharge of an alleged hand loan was dismissed by the Civil Court subsequent to the filing of the present Criminal Original Petition and that the judgment in the Civil Court and the evidence adduced in the said Civil Case by the respondent herein would make all the more probable the case of the petitioner herein that the Pronote and the cheques were obtained as blank Pronote and blank cheques in connection with the hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and the respondent herein. The dismissal of a Civil suit based on a Promissory Note may at best be a ground of defence that can be taken by the Petitioner herein in the criminal case instituted against him. The same cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings.