As long as the accused has not been adjudicated as an insolvent there is no bar on filing criminal complaints against him.

(Criminal Revision Case No.572 of 2003 filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Order dated 27.3.2003 and made in Crl.M.P.No.4882 of 2002 in C.C.No.280 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV Court, and now Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Vellore, C.C.No.65 of 2003.)

(Criminal Revision Case No.573 of 2002 filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Order dated 27.3.2003 and made in Crl.M.P.No.4883 of 2002 in C.C.No.281 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV Court, and now Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Vellore, C.C.No.64 of 2003.)

(Criminal Revision Case No.574 of 2002 filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Order dated 27.3.2003 and made in Crl.M.P.No.4884 of 2002 in C.C.No.282 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV Court, and now Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Vellore, C.C.No.66 of 2003.)

(Criminal Revision Case No.575 of 2002 filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Order dated 27.3.2003 and made in Crl.M.P.No.4885 of 2002 in C.C.No.283 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV Court, and now Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Vellore, C.C.No.67 of 2003.)

The Criminal Revision Case No.572 of 2003 is filed by the sole accused in C.C.Nos.65, 64, 66 and 67 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Vellore against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.Nos.4882 to 4885 of 2002 filed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to recall the process issued against the accused in the said Calendar Cases.

2. The respondent/complainant in all the revisions, has filed private complaints, which were taken on file under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.Nos.280 to 283 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV Court, Vellore and now renumbered as C.C.Nos.65, 64, 66 and 67 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II Court, Vellore, stating that the revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent/complainant at Vellore on 9.2.2000 and executed promissory note in favour of the respondent/complainant agreeing to pay interest at 24% per annum.

3. It is also stated in the complaint in C.C.No.280 of 2002 that the revision petitioner/accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.305485 and 305483 of Vijaya Bank, Vellore-4, for Rs.28,000/- and Rs.35,000/- on 14.2.2002 and 1.8.2002 respectively totalling Rs.63,000/- representing the part amount due to the complainant and when they were presented in the Bank of Andhra, Vellore-4, the same were returned with a memo stating “Account Closed”.

4. It is also stated in the complaint in C.C.No.281 of 2002 that the accused issued a cheque bearing No.305484 of Vijaya Bank, Vellore-4, for Rs.35,000/- on 1.8.2002 representing the part amount due to the complainant and when it was presented in the Bank of Andhra, Vellore-4, the same was returned with a memo stating “Account Closed”.

5. It is also stated in the complaint in C.C.No.282 of 2002 that the accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.0117166 and 0117193 of Vijaya Bank, Vellore-4, for Rs.35,000/- and Rs.35,000/- on 25.2.2002 and 7.3.2002 respectively totalling Rs.70,000/- representing the part amount due to the complainant and when they were presented in the Bank of Baroda, Vellore-4, the same were returned with a memo stating “Exceeds Arrangement”.

6. It is also stated in the complaint in C.C.No.283 of 2002 that the accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.0117164 and 0117163 of Vijaya Bank, Vellore-4, for Rs.35,000/- each on 4.4.2002 totalling Rs.70,000/- representing the part amount due to the complainant and when they were presented in the Bank of Baroda, Vellore-4, the same were returned with a memo stating “Exceeds Arrangement”.

7. Hence after causing statutory notice on 13.8.2002 and 9.8.2002, the complaints were filed immediately on 12.9.2002 before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV at Vellore against the accused and the same were tak