JUDGMENT-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in CC.No.4615 of 2016 pending on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, CC.No.342 of 2017 pending on the file of Fast Track Court, Saidapet and C.C.No.4438 of 2017 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.)

1. These three petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case of the complainant is that the Respondents/Petitioners herein availed loan under the scheme `Housing Loan` under Agreement No.RHHLCHE000009671. The 1st Accused / 1st Petitioner herein is borrower; 2nd Accused / 2nd Petitioner herein is co-appplicant and the 3rd Accused is company. The Accused promised to repay the loan amount as stipulated in the agreement. The 3rd Accused had arranged Auto Debit/ECS with their banker, monthly instalment of Rs.2,41,056/-. The same was dishonoured on 05.07.2016, 05.10.2016 and 09.03.2017 respectively, when the cheque was deposited for ECS with the banker with endorsement of Miscellaneous and insufficient funds. After complying the statutory notice, three private complaints have been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The quash petitions are filed mainly on the ground that the Petitioners / accused have obtained housing loan of Rs.2,00,95,000/- on 15.07.2011 from the Respondent by entering into a loan agreeement for purchase of the property situated at Plot 7, Balaji Nagar, 21st Street, Velacherry, Chennai. The said amount was payable with monthly rests (EMI) of Rs.2,22,130/- and with an EMI of Rs.2,41,056/- with interest revision payable in 180 equated monthly instalments. The petitioners also executed a mortgage in favour of the Respondent over the property and the Petitioners also regularly remitting the monthly EMI rests for the said Loan Account until 2014.

4. When the matter stood thus, it has come to the notice of the petitioners that the property was acquired by the Government prior to their purchase for the purpoe of MRTS usage. They have challenged the 4(1) notification of the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act before this Court in W.P.No.6406 of 2014 wherein the respondent sought the withdrawal of the compensation award as a secured creditor in lieu of the loan amount challenging the right of the petitioners to claim the award. Hence, it is the contention as the compensation received by the respondent, the complaint is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that as the property was acquired and the compensation was paid to the Secured Creditor, there cannot be criminal prosecution u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act. Though the Petitioners have raised objections for withdrawal of the compensation, since the Respondent sought to discharge of entire loan outstanding in the Section 138 N.I.Act proceedings in CC No.3769 of 2015 and the same came to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Respondent claimed compensation with respect to said property secured in November 2018 by releasing the title deed and other original documents pertaining to the property. Hence it is his contention that as the compensation has been paid, there is no legally enforceable debt. It is his further contention that pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, any transaction after the notification is void ab initio. The Collector ought to have made reference to the concerned court under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. However, the 1st and 2nd petitioners permitted to withdraral of compensation by the Respondent in good faith without objections. Whereas the Respondent did not seek further enhancement of the compensation as contemplated under Section 18 of L.A. Act within the period of six months from the date of Collector's Award. Therefore, it is his contention that once the amount has been discharged, t