This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records of the entire proceedings pending on the file of the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Kancheepuram in C.C. No.73 of 2012 against the petitioner/accused and quash the same.

2.For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant respectively.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned counsel for the complainant.

4. The petitioner is facing a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity the Act) in C.C. No.73/2012 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Kancheepuram, challenging which, he is before this Court on a very short ground.

5. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had issued a cheque dated 01.10.2011 for Rs.2.75 crores, which was presented on 01.10.2011 and was dishonoured on 03.10.2011. Following that, the complainant issued a statutory notice dated 12.10.2011 and has thereafter, filed a complaint on 25.11.2011.

6. It is the contention of the accused that the statutory notice issued by the complainant under Section 138 of the Act does not even contain the minimum particulars with regard to dishonour of the cheque and consequently, the prosecution launched on the edifice of a defective notice is illegal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the prosecution was initially launched against five persons and four of them filed Crl.O.P. No.10097 of 2012 for quashing the prosecution, which was allowed by this Court on 24.08.2012 on the consent given by the complainant that the prosecution can be quashed against them, but, it should proceed further against the accused; on the strength of the consent given by the complainant, Crl.O.P.No.10097 of 2012 was allowed by this Court on 24.08.2012 and the prosecution against A2 to A5 was quashed. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the present petitioner (A1) cannot seek quashment of the prosecution as against him in the light of the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.10097 of 2012.

8. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

9. As admitted by both the parties, the complainant launched the prosecution under Section 138 of the Act in C.C. No.73 of 2012 against five accused, in which, the present petitioner, viz., Dr. K. Kandasamy is the first accused and K. Anand Chakravarthy, Arun Chakravarthy, Vadivu and Aquilla Maria Anand are accused 2 to 5 respectively. A.2 to A.5 filed Criminal O.P. No.10097 of 2012 contending that they are not signatories to the cheque in question and they are the family members of Dr. K. Kandasamy and therefore, they cannot be mulcted with criminal liability for the dishonour of the cheque issued by Dr. K. Kandasamy (A1).

10. When Crl.O.P. No.10097 of 2012 came up for hearing, it is true that the complainant made an endorsement, based on which, this Court quashed the prosecution as against A.2 to A.5. It may be necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 24.08.2012 passed in Crl.O.P. No.10097 of 2012 as under:

3. Heard and perused the records.

4. It is not in dispute that learned counsel for the respondent had made an endorsement in the bundle which reads as follows:

Proceeding may be quashed against the petitioner and pray for direction to Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram to dispose of the case within 6 months.

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in view of the endorsement made by the counsel for the respondent, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein is hereby quashed and the Trial Court is directed to proceed with C.C. No.73 of 2012 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, this cannot be put against Dr.K.Kandasamy because he was not the petiti