R KAYAROHANAM Vs. S SHANMUAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached the respondent/complainant and informed him that 41 grounds of land belonging to Tamil Nadu Housing Board is for sale. The respondent/complainant agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs.30.12 crores. During the negotiation, the respondent/ complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1.20 crores as commission to the petitioner. As a part payment towards this commission, Rs.25 lakhs was paid to the petitioner on 11.03.2006.

(2.) THE petitioner's counsel further submits that the said negotiations regarding land purchase failed. Hence, the petitioner is liable to return the said part of the commission received from the respondent/complainant, for which the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on 15.05.2006, drawn on ICICI Bank, Chennai-4. THE said cheque was presented on 26.05.2006, in the complainant's bankers, namely, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai-10. THE said cheque was dishonoured and returned. Subsequently, the respondent/ complainant presented the said cheque, a second time, on 15.11.2006. THE same was again dishonoured and returned with the endorsement 'Insufficient funds'.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has cited three cases, in (1) (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 633 (Umarani ..vs.. Velan) , of High Court of Madras. (2) 1999 (3) Crimes 252 (Arunbhai Nilkanthrai Nanavati ..vs.. Jayaben Prahladbhai) of Gujarat High Court. (3) 1998 Crl. Law Journal page 4330 (K.V.Muhammed Kunhi ..vs.. P.Janardhanan) in support of his case. THE learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a cheque, which has been issued six months earlier ie., on 15.05.2006 has been represented a second time on 15.11.2006. THE petitioner's counsel has alleged that because of the above said reason, the case cannot be filed on the basis of cheque. Hence, the petitioner is seeking for a quash of the proceedings.