The court emphasized the need for a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and held that the accused could not be discharged at the current stage of the case.

The revision petitioner / second accused has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.933 of 2006 against the order made in Crl.M.P.No.974 of 2005 in C.C.No.13029 of 2005 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Egmore.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The accused had represented that they were the owners of the land situated at Ambattur and further represented that they had got the said property as their share from the ancestral property. They agreed to sell the same to the complainant and received a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- as advance from the complainant. Subsequently, the accused for reasons best known to them had refused to sell the land to the complainant and further they had also sold a part of the said land to some other persons. When the complainant approached the accused and enquired about the sale of the said land to third persons, the accused failed to give proper reply and in turn blamed the complainant for not paying balance sale consideration in time. Hence, the complainant demanded the accused to give back the advance amount and the accused had initially refused to repay the same. Hence, the complainant had to initiate criminal action against the accused for cheating. Subsequently, the accused had represented that they have a joint account in a bank and that it would suffice it either of them signed the cheques. Thereafter, they issued six cheques to the tune of Rs.5,30,000/-. Subsequently, the accused sent a lawyer's notice stating that they were liable to pay only Rs.3,30,000/-and refused to honour the cheques and demanded return of the cheques. The complainant was forced to initiate a civil suit in O.S.No.364 of 2004 before the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. The accused finally, with the help of mediators agreed to settle and thereafter had cleared 2 out of the 6 cheques viz., cheque No.946982 and cheque No.946984 drawn for a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/-.

3. As per the instructions of the accused, when the complainant presented one of the above said cheques viz., cheque No.946979, dated 20.09.2004, drawn on ICICI Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with their bankers viz., Karnataka Bank, Triplicane Branch, the said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement of "insufficient funds" on 21.09.2004. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused on 09.10.2004, which was served on the first accused on 13.10.2004 and on the second accused on 12.10.2004. As the accused had neither replied nor effected cheque payment even after receipt of notice, the complainant had filed a complaint against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Egmore, Chennai.

4. Subsequently, the case was taken on file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Egmore as C.C.No.13029 of 2005. During the case proceedings, the second accused i.e., the wife of first accused had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.974 of 2005 in C.C.No.13029 of 2005 under Section 239 of Cr. P.C. to discharge her from the proceedings in C.C.No.13029 of 2005. It was submitted that the petitioner was a house wife, and had never represented that she was the owner of the land situated at Ambatur and she had never said that she has got the said property as her share from ancestral property. It was submitted that she never came forward to settle the issue and to repay the amount and had never requested the complainant not to proceed with any criminal action since she is not aware of the allegations. It was submitted that if at all any cheque has been issued, it should have been issued by her husband, i.e., the first accused and has stated that the said account is not a joint account and that it is "either or survivor account" and she has not signed the said cheque and as such she is not liable to be prosecuted for a criminal offence. It was also submitted that the petitioner is not aware of any civil sui