SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 1794

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
M/s. Sri Moogambigai Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Vs.
M/s. Venus Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Original Petition No. 27847 of 2012
Decided On : 22-09-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. E. Ravichandran
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Ashokkumar, Mr. Su. Srinivasan

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138 and 142 – Indian penal Code, 1860 - Section 406, 420, 120(b) and 379 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XV Section 200 and 202- Criminal rules of practice - Rules 28 and 111 – Dishonored of cheque - Order of Magistrate returning complaint - Malafide intention to cheat - Petitioner submitted that order of Magistrate returning complaint was not proper and that it had been returned without appreciation of law and facts - Though it had been categorically stated that original cheque was in custody of Inspector of Police - Complainant submits that in order to discharge legal liability all of accused had issued cheque to complainant deliberately with malafide intention to cheat complainant knowingly fully well that above said cheque would not be honoured on presentation for encasement - Held, Rule 10 provides that time fixed by rules in doing any act can be extended only on a duly stamped application, while Rule 11 suggests that where no such time limit is fixed for doing any act, Register, in his discretion, may fix time within which the act should be done and may grant such further time as he deems proper in the circumstances of proceeding - Court feels that order of return of complaint passed by the learned Magistrate is not proper and has to be set aside and Magistrate be directed to take the complaint on file and follow procedures contemplated under Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure by examining complainant and his witnesses if any - Order of return of complaint filed by petitioner in unnumbered CC of Judicial Magistrate set aside and petitioner is directed to re-present complaint within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of copy of order - Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

ORDER :

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the complainant to issue direction to the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore, to take the complaint filed by the petitioner in unnumbered CC No. of 2012, against the respondents, which was returned on 03.08.2012, on file and deal with the same in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner is the complainant and he had filed a complaint against the respondents for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint at paragraphs VII and VIII it had been averred as follows:-

“VII. The Complainant submits that in order to discharge the legal liability all of the accused had issued the cheque for Rs.32,00,000/- to the complainant deliberately with malafide intention to cheat the complainant knowingly fully well that the above said cheque would not be honoured on presentation for encasement. Hence, the complainant caused a legal notice on 20.02.2012 to the accused as contemplated under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said notice was sent by RPAD. The accused No.1 to 3 is having received the notice on 27.02.2012. The Complainant further submits that after knowing the return of the above said cheque, the accused No.2 called the complainant for settlement talk and on instructions of the accused No.2, the complainant met the accused No.2 at Hotel Vikram, Thirupur, suddenly the police officials attached at Thirupur North Police Station entered the room and forcibly took the Complainant to Thirupur North Police Station and then only the Complainant came to know that the accused No.2 has lodged a false complaint against the Complainant and the same was registered in Cr.No.267/2012 under Section 406, 420, 120(b) and 379 of IPC on 13.02.2012.

VIII. The Complainant further submits that the accused No.2 claiming to be a political big wing and having police officials influence and enjoying the patronage and support of the same he registered the said F.I.R against the Complainant without territorial jurisdiction. Further the police officials attached in Thirupur North Police Station made an eye wash enquiry and forcibly obtained the above said cheque bearing No.714324 issued by the accused No.1 to 3 in respect of the enquiry in Cr.No.267/2012, now the said cheque was in custody of the Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Thirupur, in this regard immediately on 23.02.2012 the Complainant sent a telegram to the Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Thirupur and also sent a Legal Notice dated on 24.02.2012 Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Thirupur. Thereafter the Complainant has filed an application for seeking Anticipatory Bail for the above said case before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P.No.5015 of 2012 and the same was ordered.”

3. On perusal of the records it is seen that the complaint was presented on 3.4.2012 and the Court endorsement shows Complainant present check and call on 10.4.2012. On subsequent hearings the complaint was just posted for check and call and thereafter on 15.6.2012, it was returned with the direction to file original cheque. On 10.7.2012 the advocate for the complainant had re-presented the complaint with the report of compliance and endorsement stating that original cheque bearing No.714324 issued by accused No.1 to 3 to the complainant was seized and is in custody of Inspector of Police, Thirupur North Police Station in connection with Crime No.267/2012 and the said fact was explained in para VIII of the complaint. The complainant have to summon the original cheque at the time of trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted on various dates for check and call and finally on 3.8.2012, the complaint was returned with an endorsement to file along with the original cheque. Aggrieved by the return of the complaint the present direction petition had been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to take the complaint on file.

4. Learned counsel for the petiti


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top