THIRUMOORTHY Vs. S GOVINDARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner herein who is the accused in C.C.No,375 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore praying to quash the proceedings therein.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: THE petitioner herein approached the respondent herein on 02.01.2004 and borrowed Rs.80,000/- as hand loan. THE respondent herein contacted the petitioner on 25.03.2004 and demanded repayment of the borrowed amount. THE petitioner herein issued a cheque bearing No,788407 drawn on South Indian Bank, CMS Higher Secondary School extension counter, Coimbatore, dated 26.03.2004 at the complainant's house, in the presence of one R.Raja, who is known both to the complainant and the accused. When the respondent/complainant presented the cheque through his bankers for collection, the said cheque was dishonoured for the reasons, "Fund insufficient', and 'signature forged'. THE respondent/complainant therefore issued a legal notice demanding payment, on 31.03.2004 by registered post to the petitioner/accused. THE petitioner herein purposely refused to receive the legal notice and hence the notice was returned unserved on 05.04.2004. THE respondent/complainant therefore sent a legal notice by 'Certificate of Postings' on 05.04.2004. THE petitioner/accused received the same but neither sent a reply for it nor settled the borrowed amount. THE respondent therefore states that the cheque was issued by the petitioner herein without sufficient funds in the account and with an intention to cheat him. It is further alleged by the complainant that the petitioner herein instead of subscribing his signature in the usual way signed the cheque in a different manner, and hence, the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 138 r/w.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also under Section 420 IPC.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing today, the respondent was called absent. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner were heard.