M ETHIRAJULU Vs. RANGAM ADINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C. No.488 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram.

(2.) The petitioner is the first accused and the Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the coip.plainant and the second accused respectively. The first respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('Nl Act for brevity). It is alleged inter alia in the complaint that the second accused in the course of business transactions he had with the complainant purchased silk sarees from the complainant on credit basis. In discharge of the said debt, the second accused gave a cheque bearing No.740630 dated 27-2-2002 drawn on South Indian Bank Limited, Kanchipuram Branch, for a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. The said cheque was signed and issued by the first accused in favour of the second accused. The second accused gave the said cheque to the complainant with the permission of the first accused. The complainant accepted the said cheque on the promise made by both the accused that the cheque would be honoured by the Banker on its presentation. Thus, the complainant was the holder in due course of the said cheque and had a right to present the same for collection. When the complainant presented the said cheque with his banker for collection, it was dishonoured on 20-8-2002 with an endorsement as, "funds insufficient". Upon receiving intimation from his Banker on 23-8-2002, within 15 days thereafter, he sent a registered notice dated 5-9-2002 to the accused through his Counsel calling them upon to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It was duly served on the first accused on 12-9-2002 and on the second accused on 7-9-2002. Since both the accused failed to pay the said amount within one month from the date on which the cause of action had arisen, eventually the complainant filed the complaint.

(3.) Sri M.V.K. Viswanadham, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/first accused represents that there has been no legally enforceable debt between the petitioner and first respondent/complainant; and that no consideration was passed under the cheque in question.