UDAYAKUMAR Vs. K DEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No,266 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and quash the same. The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original PETITION to call for the records in C.C.No,266 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant's case is that the respondent is a sub-broker and adviser in the share market at Dharmapuri Town. THE petitioner purchased shares through the respondent from Motilal Oswal Security Limited, Mumbai. THE value of the shares purchased from Motilal Oswal Security Ltd, Mumbai was for a sum of Rs.1,77,400/-. As the said amount was not paid by the petitioner to Motilal Oswal Security Limited, Mumbai, the broker was constrained to pay the said amount to M/s. Motilal Oswal Security Limited. After that, the petitioners paid the said amount to the respondent by giving him five post dated cheques. THE said cheques were presented by the complainant in his account. All the cheques were returned with the endorsement as 'insufficient funds'. THEreafter, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused persons. Even after receipt of this notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amounts. Hence, the complainant approached the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, by way of complaint filed under Sections 138 and 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act and 420 of IPC. Along with the said complaint, the complainant filed 13 documents and mentioned two witnesses. THE learned Magistrate has taken the case on his file as C.C.No,266 of 2006,and issued summons to the petitioners/accused herein.

(3.) THE contentions of both the sides were perused and the arguments of both the sides were heard. THE Court is of the view that the case has been filed under Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of dishonoured cheques, which were issued by the petitioners. THErefore, the said case has got to be tried. Accordingly, the Court is not warranted to interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No,266 of 2006 on the filed of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri.