ORDER

The present criminal original petition is directed against the cognizance taken of the complaint filed by the respondent u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, (FTC), Saidapet, Chennai, in C.C. No.47 of 2016.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that A-1 is the company; A-2 is the Managing Director of A-1 company and A-3 and A-4 are its non-executive Directors of A-1 Company. A-1 had entered into a business transaction with the respondent company for the supply of computer and computer prefill products and in line with the said business arrangement, A-1 company had a fixed credit limit facility with the respondent company. In furtherance to the business transaction between A-1 and the respondent, three security cheques, which were non-MICR cheques (non-CTS-2010 cheques) were issued by A-1 in the year 2010. There arose certain disputes between A-1 company and the respondent, in relation to payment of some commission to A-1, which resulted in the presentment of one of the non-MICR cheques by the respondent in the year 2015, which was returned by the bank as the same was non-CTS-2010 compliant and against the same, the present complaint was filed by the respondent u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has been taken cognizance of by the trial court and aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed for quashment of the same.

3. Mr. N.R.Elango, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has wholly misdirected itself in entertaining the complaint for the very simple reason that initially on and from 31.12.2012, Reserve Bank of India had instructed all the banks to recall all the non-MICR cheques from its customers and replace the same with CTS-2010 cheques, which was subsequently extended upto 31.07.2013. That being the case, the case of the petitioner being that the cheques, three in number, were issued only towards security purpose, had been misused by the respondent, more especially, knowing fully well that the said cheques are non-CTS-2010 complaint cheques.

4. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Reserve Bank of India having intimated that the non-CTS-2010 cheques would not be valid after 31.3.2013, the respondent being a business entity, was also very much aware of the invalidity of the security cheques, which it was holding, but wantonly had deposited one of the cheques, knowing it to be invalid and, the cheques, being given only for security purposes, have been deposited by the respondent, without notice to the petitioner.

5. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondent cannot claim ignorance of the cheque not being CTS-2010 complaint as it is also a large establishment, which would have its own Finance and Legal Department, who would be knowing the nuances of the deposit of a non-CTS 2010 cheque. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that only towards the commission payment between the petitioners and the respondent, there existed a dispute, and to defeat the claim of the petitioners towards payment of commission, the respondent has resorted to depositing the cheque, which has been purely given for security purpose, which clearly shows that the respondent was trying to enrich itself by not giving the commissions due to the petitioner in the business transaction between both the entities. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that in respect of the dispute between A-1 and the respondent, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the respondent leading to passing of an arbitral award in favour of the respondent.

6. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that once the Reserve Bank of India has given directions to the bank for substituting the non-CTS-2010 cheques with CTS-2010 cheques and the validity has been extended only upto 31.7.13, the a