DEVA MADHA INDUSTRIES Vs. M A VIJAYA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the above criminal Original Petition to call for the records relating to C. C. No. 343 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate no-I, Pollachi, and quash the same.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant's case is that he has filed C. C. No. 343 of 2006 against the petitioners/accused herein for an alleged offence under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant is the power agent of the respondent, who is an agent in Dalmia Cements at Pollachi region. The 2nd petitioner is running Meri Matha Cement Pipe Company and the said company is manufacturing different types of cement pipes. For their production, cement was purchased from the complainant. In the course of said purchase transaction of cement, the petitioners owe the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,07,085/- on demand made by the complainant, the petitioners issued a cheque for a sum of rs. 1,29,544/- dated 21. 01. 2004. The cheque was drawn on State Bank of India. The said cheque was presented by the complainant through his Banker, South Indian bank. The same was returned with the endorsement, "insufficient funds". Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice and subsequently filed the private complainant before the Judicial Magistrate No-I Pollachi. Supporting his complaint, he has filed 8 documents and mentioned 2 witnesses. The learned magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and has taken the complaint on his file as C. C. No. 343 of 2006.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the above complaint by way of this quash petition for the below mentioned reasons. 1) All the transactions between the petitioners and respondent were closed prior to the year 2003. 2) Further, It is alleged that the petitioner's firm was dissolved in the year 2003. The petitioner had issued a blank cheque, bearing No. 413194 drawn on State bank of India, Pollachi, to the respondent in good faith. Even after settling all dues it is alleged that the respondent did not return the said cheque. The complainant had also sent a legal notice. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 23. 2. 2004 and denied the said claim. The petitioners state that after the dishonour of cheque, as mandatory required under the proviso (b) and (c) of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the respondent has not sent any advocate notice to the drawer of the cheque namely the petitioners herein making demand for the payment of cheque amount to him.