C CHANDRAN Vs. SREE DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C.No.187 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court, Nagercoil. He filed this Criminal Original Petition, seeking the relief to set aside the order dated 26.06.2013, passed in Cr.M.P.No.1448 of 2012 in C.C.No.187 of 2012.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent being the accused obtained a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of loan to tideover her domestic need and thereafter, in order to discharge her liability, she had given a Cheque bearing No.002044, drawn on Trivanathapuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kunnukuzhy Branch, Trivandrum, dated 04.03.2011, for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. The petitioner presented the abovesaid cheque on 09.03.2011 through HDFC Bank, Nagercoil Branch. But, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement ''funds insufficient''. In order to dishonouring the cheque, the Bank concerned issued a return memo, dated 12.03.2011. After receiving the same, on 07.04.2011, the petitioner sent a registered notice through his Lawyer to the respondent/accused, calling upon her for payment of the said amount due on the dishonoured cheque, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The said notice was received by the respondent on 12.04.2011. Thereafter, she had not paid the said amount within the time as stipulated in the notice. Hence, the petitioner has filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Nagercoil, and during the time of trial, after examining the petitioner's side evidence, when the case was posted for examination of respondent's side evidence, the respondent filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking the relief to call for the records perataining to call details of BSNL Mobile No.9447033972, Trivanathapuram Telecom Circle. After receiving counter from the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, allowed the application. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner herein has filed this Criminal Original Petition to set aside the said order.

(3.) Now, on going through the reasons stated by the respondent in the application, it is to be noted that during the time of evidence given by P.W.2, he gave evidence as at the time of availing loan, he contacted the respondent through the abovesaid Mobile number. Further, he deposed that frequently he had contacted the respondent. During the time of considering the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, has held as follows:-