O R D E R

This criminal original petition is filed seeking quashment of the case in STC No.29 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court Level), Theni.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent lodged a complaint stating that for the purpose of meeting out the urgent expenses, the petitioner/accused borrowed Rs.8,50,000/-, on 20/12/2016 and promised to return the same within a year. When demand was made, he was delaying and later, on 06/10/2016, he issued a cheque for Rs.8,50,000/- drawn on Axis Bank, Paladdam Branch, Tirupur. That was presented for payment in the City Union Bank, Theni Branch, on 06/10/2016. That was returned as 'Account Closed', on 07/10/2016. The same was received by the complainant on the very same day. After completing the statutory formalities, the complaint was filed. With the above said allegations, demand notice was sent, on 07/10/2016. That was received, on 08/11/2016. Rejoinder was issued, on 21/11/2016. Again reply rejoinder was received by the complainant, on 30/11/2016.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that there was no relationship between him and the complainant, because, he is a resident of Coimbatore and doing a building contractor work; Since the complainant is a practising Advocate in Tirupur, he and his friends compelled the petitioner to settle the amount; Apart from that, it has been stated that within 30 days from the date of intimation of the dishonour, notice must be issued; The cheque was presented, on 06/11/2016; It was returned, on 07/10/2016; Notice was sent only, on 07/10/2016, which is the 32nd day; So it is a statutory violation; The actual date of borrowal neither stated in the demand notice, nor in the complaint.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Whether there was any acquaintance between them cannot be a matter for consideration in this petition, since, it is a factual aspect, it has to be established by way of evidence at the time of trial. Similarly, the contention that the date and place of borrowal has not been mentioned, either in the notice or in the complaint cannot be a matter for consideration also in this petition for the simple reason that it is a factual issue, which cannot be gone into by this court. It is a matter for evidence at the time of trial. The only legal ground, that has been advanced by the petitioner is that within 30 days or the knowledge of the dishonour, the statutory notice must be issued. But here, it has been issued only on the 32nd day. So according to him, this is the statutory violation. The cognizance that has been taken by the trial court itself is illegal one. So, this is the only point got to be addressed.

6.Records have been called for from the trial court to find out the actual date of sending the demand notice and other particulars. The date of dishonour is 07/10/2016. The reason is 'Account Closed'. The demand notice is dated 07/11/2016. This, according to the petitioner, is beyond the statutory period.

7.No doubt that the date of dishonour is 07/10/2016.

It is admitted by the complaint to the effect that it was brought to the notice that he has received the dishonour memo on the date itself. He sent notice, on 07/11/2016 that is on 31th day. Whether it is legal or not is the only point to be decided by this court. For that purpose, we can take the guidance from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C.Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2014)11 SCC 790], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while answering the reference in view of the conflict judgment, has finally concluded that to resolve the dispute, reference can be made to section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and concluded that the date on which the information has been received must be excluded. When computing the period of 30 days, since it is a settled position of law, which is followed in subsequent cases also, the same view has been followed and relied upon. No further discussion i