1. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Petitioner has approached this Court with this Petition to quash the proceedings of the case in C.C. No.76 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

2. The Petitioner is the accused in the case in C.C. No.76 of 2010. The Respondent is the Complainant. The Respondent had filed the Complaint to deal with the accused in accordance with the Proviso to S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.76 of 2010 on the sole ground that the issuance of the legal notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action for filing of the Criminal Complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

3. The Respondent has alleged in his Complaint that the Petitioner had totally borrowed a sum of `49 lakhs on various dates and given an undertaking on 10.10.2009 that the debt would be paid back within six month’s time. When the amount wad demanded to be repaid, the Petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No.516262 on 05.04.2010 for the value of `49 lakhs drawn on Bank of Baroda at Thirupathi Branch. When the said cheque was presented in the Bank for encashment, it was bounced back on 07.04.2010 with an endorsement ‘Insufficiency of Funds’. Hence, a legal notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent on 13.04.2010 calling him for payment of the cheque amount. Since, the amount was not paid, the Respondent has filed the Complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Mr. C.T. Mohan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, while advancing his arguments has submitted that the Petitioner had suitably replied to the legal notice issued on behalf of the Respondent denying all the allegations. He would also contend that apart from the Stone Crushing business, the Petitioner is also running a brick-kiln, Real Estate business and Auto Financing and that, he is financially well placed and as such, there was no necessity for him to borrow such a huge amount from the Respondent.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would further submit that the Respondent and the Petitioner are belonging to the same community and the Respondent is also the nephew of the Petitioner.

7. He has also added that in-fact on the request of the Respondent’s mother, the Petitioner had put the Respondent in employment in Civil Contractor, who was the customer of the Petitioner and due to misappropriation committed by the Respondent, the Petitioner had to bear the loss caused by the Respondent to the said Civil Contractor and thereafter, the Respondent was taken into employment with the Petitioner and he was paid salary as an employee under the Petitioner.

8. The Respondent had, in due course, gained confidence with the household persons of the Petitioner, which lead to the Respondent being sent to the customers of the Petitioner for collection of amounts due to the Petitioner. Between the years 2005 and 2009, he had fallen sick and had been bedridden. Taking undue advantage of this position, the Respondent had operated the business accounts of the Petitioner in the State Bank of India and ultimately, he had misappropriated and swindled the dues from the customer to the extent of `15 lakhs and when the Petitioner had found out the same, the Respondent had left the family for Bangalore. That on 25.03.2010, after the Respondent coming back from Bangalore, when the Petitioner had asked him for entire accounts to be submitted to the Income Tax Department, the Respondent had produced rough and vague accounts and promised to enter them in the Ledger Folio. But he had not done so. Instead, he has come forward with a Compliant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with false allegations as if the P