O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred to call for the records in the complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.3619 of 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Fast Track Court No.1, Allikulam, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the complaint given by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque. The respondent is an Advocate and he has filed a complaint on the allegation that the petitioner had engaged his professional legal service and he used to issue cheques to settle the fees of the respondent. In this regard, the petitioner had given a cheque for Rs.15,00,000/- on 14.01.2012 drawn on Deutsche Bank towards the part payment for the service rendered by the respondent. The respondent deposited the above cheque as per the instructions of the petitioner on 22.05.2012 with the Canara Bank, Santhome, Chennai. But it was returned on 29.05.2012 with an endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”. Subsequently, the respondent issued mandatory legal notice and thereafter filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. The petitioner has filed a petition to quash the proceedings by stating that the impugned cheque is not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability. The respondent had fixed Rs.30,00,000/- as his professional fee for recovering the loan given by the petitioner to one S.Venkatramanan. The alleged loan amount to be given by the said S.Venkatramanan was Rs.3,00,00,000/-. The petitioner is functioning as a managing director of M/s.Vaishnovi Infrastructure Engineering Private Limited. The petitioner serving in the Company as one of its Directors for a period between 05.02.2011 and 24.08.2011. Just in order to meet out any contingency that might arise in the course of business and as a usual practice, the petitioner had kept the cheque bearing a Cheque No.155808 dated 14.01.2012 drawn for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- without filling the name of the payee. The respondent had appropriated the cheque from the brief case of the petitioner and filled his name and deposited it in the Bank for encashment. The account of the petitioner is the joint account held in his name and his wife Mrs.Rekha Ashok. When his wife realized that the cheque was missing, she gave an instruction to the Bank to stop payment, in case the cheque is presented for collection.

4. After coming to know about the presentation of the cheque, the petitioner had given a complaint to police on 30.05.2012, but no action has been taken. Subsequently, the respondent has issued the legal notice and for which the petitioner had sent a reply notices on 06.06.2012 and 18.06.2012. When the petitioner had asked the respondent what kind of service he has rendered to claim professional fee, the respondent claimed that he had rendered legal and professional service from November 2010 to April 2012. No proof has been produced to show what kind of service the respondent had provided in order to claim the said fee. The respondent has also filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No.87 of 2015 for recovery of money on the basis of the above cheque wherein he has alleged that one Venkatramanan had to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- to the petitioner and for which the petitioner required the service of the respondent. In connection with the said recovery, the respondent is said to have fixed 10% of the amount as the fee (i.e) Rs.30,00,000/-. The said amount was fixed even without initiating any civil proceedings in this regard. The said suit has been transferred on the point of jurisdiction to the City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.2235 of 2015.

5. The simple case of the respondent is that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- has been issued as part payment for the fee fixed to him for the service to be rendered in recovering the loan obtained by one Venkatramanan from the petitioner. The petition has been filed at the time in t