MEENA V.R. THONDAIMAN Vs. K. AMUTHAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This quash petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.287 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet having been taken cognizance for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner/Accused.

(2.) The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner is known to him. The petitioner and her son borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the respondent on 02.04.2004 on execution of registered mortgage deed of their properties. Towards discharge of part amount, the petitioner herein, issued a cheque bearing No.803257 dated 28.06.2007 for a sum of Rs. 10,80,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, When the cheque was presented for collection on 29.06.2007 through the State Bank of India, Kodaikanal, it was dishonoured and returned on 13.07.2007 for the reason "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the respondent issued statutory notice dated 21.07.2007 and the same was duly received by the petitioner on 24.07.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner did not pay the cheque amount and hence, the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet had taken cognizance for the offences under Section 138 of Negotioable Instrument Act against the petitioner and it is pending for trial.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that according to the case of the respondent, the petitioner and her son borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- on 02.04.2004 on execution of a mortgage deed. However, without repaying the same, on 28.06.2007, again, the petitioner's son borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Therefore, when the first loan itself is pending, the further loan as alleged by the respondent herein it not at all possible and it is unbelievable.