The legal presumption of issue of cheque in discharge of liability can be rebutted only during the trial, and the Court should not quash a complaint at a pre-trial stage if the complaints are not premature.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in STC No.419 of 2018 pending on the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem and quash the complaint.

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in STC No.417 of 2018 pending on the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem and quash the complaint.

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in STC No.418 of 2018 pending on the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem and quash the complaint.

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in STC No.416 of 2018 pending on the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem and quash the complaint.)

Common Order

1. These Criminal Original Petitions had been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. Nos.416, 417, 418 and 419 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that notice was issued on 14.05.2012 to the Petitioner. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that before expiry of 45 days from the date of return of cheques the complaint had been filed. Sufficient time had to be given to the Accused to respond to the notice. Therefore, from the date of issue of statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 45 days time is granted to file private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (138 to be read)

3. The Respondent had filed complaints in STC Nos.416, 417, 418 and 419 of 2018 for the cheque bearing No.039085, dated 05.02.2012, for the amount of Rs.5,04,870/-; for the cheques bearing No.039079, 039080, 039081 and 039082, dated 28.01.2012, 29.01.2012, 30.01.2012 and 31.01.2012 respectively each for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-; for the cheque bearing No.039070, dated 16.01.2012, for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and for the cheque bearing No.039083, 039084 dated 01.02.2012 and 03.02.2012 each for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, New Delhi – 7 which were dishonoured vide memo dated 24.04.2012 for the reason “Account Blocked”. Therefore, notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued by the Respondent on 14.05.2012. The same was sent to the Petitioner only on 16.05.2012. Thereafter the Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act prematurely before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Cases at Salem, on 31.05.2012. The complaint filed by the Respondent before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Cases is premature. Therefore, the complaints are not maintainable and the same have to be quashed.

4. He further submitted that the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Cases at Salem failed to appreciate the facts in the criminal complaint as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the Income Tax Authorities had blocked the Bank Account of the Petitioner who is facing the trial before the trial Court. The cheques were returned with the endorsement “Account Blocked”. It does not specifically state under whose instructions the account was blocked. When the notice was served on the Petitioner, on behalf of the Complaint, the Petitioner had not replied. Before the reply, the complaints were filed. Therefore, the complaints are the premature complaints and the same have to be quashed.

5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following rulings:

5.1. In the case of Vijay Chaudhary -vs- Gyan Chand Jain reported in 2008 (104) DRJ 349 wherein the High Court of Delhi has he