Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
P.N. Prakash, B. Pugalendhi, JJ.
B. Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
R. Amaravathi – Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5109 of 2018
Decided On : 30-06-2020
Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of Prosecution - Section 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 142 - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b) - 138 - 138(c) - 142(b] - The court discussed the conflicting views on the interpretation of Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and provided an authoritative pronouncement on the issue. It held that a complaint filed within the period of fifteen days contemplated by Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is no complaint in the eye of law, and the prosecution based on such a complaint is liable to be quashed. The court also allowed the complainant six months to file a fresh complaint, condoning the delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed a sum of money and issued a cheque that was returned unpaid. The accused filed a petition to quash the prosecution, arguing that the complaint was filed before the expiry of the statutory period. The court referred the matter to a Division Bench due to conflicting views on this issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a complaint filed within the period of fifteen days contemplated by Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is no complaint in the eye of law, and the prosecution based on such a complaint is liable to be quashed. It allowed the complainant six months to file a fresh complaint, condoning the delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Issues: The main issue was whether a complaint filed within the period of fifteen days contemplated by Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a complaint filed within the period of fifteen days contemplated by Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is no complaint in the eye of law, and the prosecution based on such a complaint is liable to be quashed. It also allowed the complainant six months to file a fresh complaint, condoning the delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Final Decision: The court quashed the prosecution and allowed the complainant six months to file a fresh complaint, condoning the delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
ORDER :
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the prosecution in S.T.C. No. 630 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, (Fast Track Court), Madurai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as 'accused' and 'complainant' respectively.
3. Before adverting to the referral order, it will be apposite to narrate the facts :
3.1. It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) on 12.01.2011 as loan promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Towards the said debt, the accused issued a cheque dated 12.04.2013 for Rs. 3,46,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Six Thousand and Five Hundred only). The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 18.04.2013 and the same was returned unpaid with the endorsement 'Funds Insufficient' on 19.04.2013.
3.2. The complainant issued a statutory demand notice on 30.04.2013 to the accused and on receipt of the same, the accused sent a reply notice dated 03.05.2013 repudiating the debt. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint in S.T.C. No. 630 of 2013 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on 08.05.2013, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 (Fast Track Court), Madurai, against the accused. After a tiresome exercise by the complainant, the accused appeared before the Magistrate and after a few hearings, absconded and that necessitated the Magistrate to issue warrant to secure the accused on 12.07.2016. Ultimately, on 04.04.2017, the accused surrendered before the Magistrate, pursuant to which, the warrant was recalled and the trial began.
3.3. The complainant was examined as P.W. 1 on 13.06.2017 and the accused was questioned under Section 313(i)(b) Cr.P.C., on 29.06.2017. Opportunity was given to the accused to produce defence witnesses, but she filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall the complainant/P.W. 1 for cross-examination. The complainant was subjected to cross-examination on 03.10.2017, 25.10.2017 and 09.11.2017. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for arguments from time to time. While so, the accused filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 5109 of 2018 before this Court on 28.03.2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the prosecution on the ground that the complainant had filed the complaint before the expiry of fifteen days period envisaged by Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In essence, the grievance of the accused is that the statutory notice was issued by the complainant on 30.04.2013; she had filed the complaint on 08.05.2013; the Court had recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 09.05.2013 and taken cognizance of the offence.
3.4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was brought to the knowledge of the learned Single Judge that there were two conflicting views on this aspect. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Pratap Singh, J.) in V. Suresh Kumar v. C. Sreekrishnan reported in 1995 (83) Company Cases 103 (Madras) took the view that a complaint filed within fifteen days of the issuance of the statutory demand notice cannot be maintained. However, another learned Single Judge (S. Vimala, J.) in Sagaya Arockia Raj v. Ganesh Kumar reported in (2017) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 226, took a different view and held that after the accused had repudiated the debt by issuing a reply notice to the statutory demand notice, there is no necessity for the complainant to wait for fifteen days to present the complaint. On account of these divergent views, the learned Single Judge who heard this case, referred the matter to a Division Bench by order dated 10.08.2018 and the reference reads thus:
"20. There is apparent conflict of views in the judgment referred supra and reported in 2017 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 226 and judgment referred herein above, reported in 1995 (83) Comp Cas 103 (Mad).
21. One more important issue that needs to be answered in cases
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
