The court emphasized that the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings is an exception and should be sparingly and cautiously exercised, and that the court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact at this stage.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.488 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, and quash the same as illegal.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.488 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindigul, and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.488 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.

3. The respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The case of the prosecution is that since the petitioner's husband was running auction chits and the petitioner was running lodging house in Sirumalai as Vishnu Cottage, the respondent had acquaintence with the petitioner five years prior to the lodging of the complaint, that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet out the family expenses and for developing the Vishnu Cottage at Sirumalai and to clear the sundry debts from the respondent on 25.03.2019 agreeing to repay the said loan amount within one month and issued a cheque bearing No.221241 drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Dindigul Branch, for Rs.10,00,000/- by post-dating the same as 25.04.2019, after filling up and subscribing her signature, that the respondent presented the cheque for collection through his banker Karur Vysya Bank, R.M.Colony Branch, Dindigul, on 25.04.2019, that the cheque was returned on 26.04.2019 for the reason 'Account Closed', that the respondent has then sent a legal notice on 07.05.2019 to the petitioner demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque, that though the petitioner has received the legal notice on 10.05.2019, she has neither sent any reply nor made any payment and that therfore the respondent was constrained to file the above complaint.

5. The case of the petitioner is that all the allegations levelled by the respondent are false and baseless, that the respondent is totally an unknown person to the petitioner, that the respondent is not the friend of her husband, that the petitioner's daughter is doing business at America and her son is a reputed doctor and hence, there is no necessity for the petitioner to receive such amount from him, that the petitioner has never issued any cheque to the respondent nor signed any such cheque, that since the petitioner was suffering from severe back pain and was taking treatment at JCB hospital as outpatient, she could not send reply notice in time and that she sent a reply notice dated 24.05.2019 in response to the legal notice issued by the respondent.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that one Umadevi resident of Vivekananda Nagar is the close friend of the petitioner, that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- from the said Umadevi and gave her 3 sovereigns of diamond necklace, 5 sovereigns of bangles and 2 sovereigns of studs, that the petitioner had repaid the amount on 08.10.2018 itself and asked her jewels, that the said Umadevi refused to return the jewels and in the meanwhile, the said Umadevi came to the petitioner's house and at that time, the petitioner kept her Axis Bank cheque book in her table without signing bearing Nos.221230 to 221250, that the said cheque book was stolen by the said Umadevi and that thereafter, the said Umadevi contacted the petitioner and demanded exorbitant interest.

7. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner approached the said Umadevi with the help of her family members and elders, that the said Umadevi had returned only four cheques bearing Nos.221232, 221233, 221238 and 221245, after repeated requests, but she refused to return the jewels and other cheques, that the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Town North Police