ORDER :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

These criminal original petitions have been filed praying to quash the proceedings in CC.No.1032 of 2017 pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai

2. Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.19732 of 2017 are arrayed as A1 and A2 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.10081 of 2017 is arrayed as A4 in CC.No.1032 of 2017. The first respondent had filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act r/w 141 of NI Act, alleging that the first accused is a partnership firm running business in the name and style of ‘Vendhar Movies’ and accused 2 to 4 are its partners. On behalf of the first accused, the second accused had borrowed loan for interest from the first respondent for the business. The second accused had executed necessary documents in favour of the first respondent for availing loan. It was further alleged that at the time of borrowing loan amount, the fourth accused told the first respondent that both Vendhar TV and Vendhar Movies are one and the same. Believing the said words, the first respondent had lent a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- in favour of the accused. The first accused with the consent and knowledge of the fourth accused had entered into an agreement dated 11.01.2016. However, after repeated requests and demands made by the first respondent for repayment of the loan amount, the second accused by the communication dated 20.04.2016, had transferred some portion of the amount. Insofar as the remaining amount is concerned, the fourth accused directed the second accused to issue post dated cheques. Accordingly, cheques were issued for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and 1,60,00,000/- dated 28.11.2016 towards the discharge of partial liability out of the total liability. Both the cheques were presented for collection and the same were returned dishonoured for the reason ‘instrument out dated stale’. After causing statutory notice, the first respondent lodged complaint. Pending the complaint, accused 1, 2 and 4 filed these petitions to quash the proceedings on the ground that the cheques were returned for the reason ‘instrument out dated stale’. Therefore, there is absolutely no cause of action to lodge complaint without fulfilling the requirement under Section 138 of NI Act. Even assuming that the cheques were presented on time, the banker returned the cheque for the reason ‘instrument out dated / stale’, for which the petitioners are not liable to be punished since there is no cause of action to lodge complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. They further submit that insofar as the accused 2 to 4 are concerned, they are neither partners nor directors of the first accused. The first accused is the partnership concern, in which the fourth accused was neither partner nor had he played any role on behalf of the first accused. In fact, after receipt of the statutory notice, the fourth accused filed reply notice stating that the fourth accused is in no way connected with the first accused since he is not a partner of the first accused company. Further the fourth accused is neither a partner nor a signatory to the cheque. Without even considering the same, the trial court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and issued summons to all the accused persons.

3. Originally both the petitions were listed before this Court on 02.11.2023 and on that day, this Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned proceedings by order dated 02.11.2023. On that day, the first respondent did not appear either in person or through pleader. Aggrieved by the same, the son of the first respondent herein filed application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(criminal)No.10070 of 2025 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by order dated 14.07.2025, heard the petition to substitute him as the legal heir of the deceased first respondent and the same was allowed and cause title was ordered to be amended. To that extent, a memo was filed and the s