Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
T. Kalavathy -Petitioner
versus
Veera Exports -Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 21681 of 1998
and Crl. M.P. No. 10473 of 1998
Decided on 24-11-2000
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr., V.K. Sathiamurthy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kumarasamy, Advocate.
Held: In this context, the only point that may arise for consideration in this case is as to whether the eight cheques bearing the various dates from 9-4-1995 to 30-10-1995 the period of which would expire on 9-10-1995 to 30-10-1995, could be revalidated by altering the dates in January 1996, so as to give life for another six months from the dates of the cheques, namely, 9-4-1-996 to 30-4-1996.
(Para 11)
The short answer is in my view, the alteration of the dates of the cheques which became invalidated due to the expiry, of the stipulated period which is material, cannot be permitted under law to make them revalidated.
(Para 12)
Furthermore, in this case, the so called alterations were not, admittedly, made during the permissible period of six months, namely, the period of validity, but these were made in January, 1996, that is after two months on expiry of the period of validity. Thus, it is clear that surgery of alteration was made after the cheque became a dead letter and as such this alteration or correction cannot be construed to be a surgery but it is nothing but post-mortem.
(Para 13)
Result: Petition allowed.
M. Karpagavinayagam. J. - T. Kalavathy the petitioner herein challenging the proceedings for the offence tinder Section 138 of the: Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by Veera Exports, Karur the respondent/ complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the same.
2. Though several grounds have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner. I am of the opinion that this petition has got to be allowed on a single, and short ground.
3. The case of the complainant, the respondent herein is as follows:
"The accused having business dealing With the complainant firm issued the eight cheques bearing various dates from 94-1995 to 30-4-1995 to the tune of Rs. 4,00.000/- in favour of the complainant firm towards the discharge of liability. On 15-5-1995 the complaint presented all the cheques but the same were returned unpaid. The complainant initiated the same to the accused who in turn assured the complainant that she would pay the cheque amount after a period of six months. In the month of January 1996, the accused expressed her inabilhy to pay the cheque amount and altered the year of the cheques in the cheques mentioned above as 1996 and made necessary endorsement therefore, She further requested to present the cheques after a period of three months. Accordingly the cheques were presented on 18-7-1996. But the same were returned on 26-7-1996 with the endorsement "payment stopped". Then the complainant issued notice demanding the cheque amount within 15 days. But, the accused sent a reply stating that she did not voluntarily make those relevant corrections with regard to the year and she was compelled to put the endorsement in those cheques under threat and coercion after she was kid napped. Since the cheque amounts were not paid the complaint was filed."
4. The case of the accused/petitioner is as follows: -
"During the business dealings there were a number of transactions. These eight cheques bearing the dates from 9-4-1995 to 30-4-1995 were issued by the petitioner, but the amounts of those cheques were already paid. Since there was a misunderstanding between the petitioner and the accused. when the petitioner and her husband were coming out of the criminal Court at Karur on 12-7-1996, the persons attached to the complainant firm alongwith rowdy elements suddenly took them in an Auto forcibly and confined in a room and beaten. At that time, the petitioner was threatened and coerced to make alterations in those cheques by striking the year 1995 and writing as 1996. After they were released out the petitioner filed a police complaint to the Karur Police and the said complaint was registered in Crime No. 964 of 1996 for offences under Sections 147. 342. 363 and 384 I.P.C. on 29-7-1996. Immediately thereafter, she also intimated the same to the Bank and requested them to stop the payment in regard-to the cheques in question. In the meantime, the complainant firm presented the cheques on 18-7-1996 and the same were dishonoured on 26-7-1996. On receiving the notice dated 18-8-1996 from the complainant firm the petitioner had given a detailed reply dated 23-8-1996 stating that the alterations were made not voluntarily but out of threat and coercion and with regard to that police investigation is pending. Despite this a complaint is filed. Since the said alterations were not made voluntarily the complainant would not be entitled to file any complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act."
5. According to the complainant the year 1995 put in the cheques was altered into 1996. On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that the alterations were not made voluntarily. The question as to whether the alterations and the endorsement made by the petitioner out of threat and coercion cannot be decided by this Court as it is a question of fact, more so when the police investigation is pending with reference to the offence of abduction and coercion. Therefore, the contention th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
