Complaint could not be quashed for such defect which is a curable defect.

Common Order:

Crl.O.P.No.6773 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.326 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

2. Crl.O.P.No.6774 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to call for the records relating to the case in STC No.1577 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

3. Crl.O.P.No.6774 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.285 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and quash the same.

4. It is seen from the records that the respondent herein filed similar complaints under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners/accused for alleged offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. All the three Criminal Original Petitions have been filed with similar averments against the respondent, Bank of India, Dharmapuri Branch, represented by its Senior Manager.

5. As per the complaint given by the respondent/complainant against the petitioners, the petitioners/accused are close relative of one R.Mohandas and one D.R.Rajasekaran, the partners of a firm under the name and style of M/s. D.R.Ramamoorthy & Sons, carrying on business in petroleum products at Bye-pass Road, Dharmapuri. The said firm was liable to pay the respondent bank a balance to the tune of Rs.86,00,000/-(Rupees Eighty six lakh only) in the cash-credit account maintained by the said firm and the bank was insisting on the said firm to regularize the account. The partners of the firm had obtained 6 cheques from the petitioners/accused drawn in favour of the aforesaid firm and requested the respondent bank to purchase the cheques and adjust the proceeds thereof towards part satisfaction of the dues in their cash-credit account. The respondent bank, being a holder in due course of the cheques presented the same for collection on the due dates of the cheques in the respective banks, but all the said cheques were returned by the respective drawee banks on the same day of presentation, on the ground of .Insufficiency of Funds.. Therefore, the respondent bank thereafter issued a legal notice to all the petitioners with regard to the dishonour of the respective cheques issued by them.

6. The details of three cheques issued by R.Kanthimathi, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6773 of 2006 are as follows:

No. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Drawn on Cheque amount

(Dharmapuri Branch)

1. 28.06.2004 687553 Indian Bank Rs.3,30,000/-

2. 30.06.2004 526316 Indian Bank Rs.3,45,000/-

3. 06.07.2004 687554 Indian Bank Rs.5,50,000/-

7. The details of the cheque issued by P.Sreenivasan, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6774 of 2006 is as follows:

No. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Drawn on Cheque amount (Dharmapuri Branch)

1. 09.02.2004 817995 Indian Bank Rs.4,40,000/-

8. The details of two cheques issued by M.Vijayakumari, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6775 of 2006 are as follows:

No. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Drawn on Cheque amount

(Dharmapuri Branch)

1. 17.03.2004 683915 Indian Bank Rs.5,50,000/-

2. 18.03.2004 683916 Indian Bank Rs.5,52,000/-

9. It is not in dispute that after the dishonour, the respondent bank issued separate legal notice to the respective petitioner, informing the dishonour of the cheques and demanding settlement of dues thereon. The complaint relating to Crl.O.P.No.6773 of 2006 was filed before the trial court with a delay of 28 days. The complaint relating to Crl.O.P.No.6774 of 2006 was filed before the trial court with a delay of 14 days. Similarly, the complaint relating to Crl.O.P.No.675 of 2005 has been filed before the trial court with a delay of 3 days. The respondent bank has prayed the trial court to condone the delay in taking criminal action against the