ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.113 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.

2. Facts in brief as stated by the respondent before the Trial Court in C.C.No.113 of 2017:-

The respondent/complainant is a firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act and the partners of the complainant firm executed a special power of attorney on 23.02.2017 in favour of one Mr.M.Selvam, who is the Clerk of the firm, for filing the complaint and conduct the trial proceedings. On the basis of the power of attorney, executed by the partners of the firm, the complaint has been filed.

3. The respondent/complainant, is a leading manufacturer of cine wall posters at Sivakasi. The first accused is a private limited company. The accused numbers 2 and 3 are the Directors of the Company. They are conducting day- to-day affairs of the first accused Company and the accused Company had dealings with the complainant by way of getting cine wall posters on credit basis. As per the books of accounts maintained by the complainant firm, the accused was liable to pay a sum of Rs.27,23,646.76/-.

To discharge, the accused issued the following cheques,

4. Though, the cheques were presented for payment through Tamilnadu Mercontile Bank Limited, Sivakasi Branch, all the cheques were returned with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The return memos were dated 03.01.2017 and 06.01.2017. So, the complainant issued a notice on 19.01.2017 and the same was received by the authorised person on 21.01.2017. A reply notice notice was sent on 04.02.2017 containing false allegations. So, a complaint was filed by the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. To quash the complaint, the accused filed this petition mainly on the ground that the cheques, mentioned in the complaint, were given only for the purpose of security and no liability exists either on the date of issuing cheques or on the date of presentation of the cheques for collection and demand notice issued by the complainant.

6. According to the petitioner, as per the agreement between the parties, advance cheques were to be issued, towards the credit transaction and whenever the amount is paid, that will be made a credit and used to return the cheques. So, according to him, this practise was followed till the dispute arose between the parties and as a result of which, they presented the cheques for payment and got it dishonoured and filed the false complaint. So, according to him, no amount remains to be paid in the business transaction and the disputed cheques were properly vouched by the authorised agent of the respondent. They also produced the copy of the cash payment vouchers in the typed set of papers, dated 18.11.2016 and 22.11.2016, mentioning various amounts, wherein, we also find that the disputed cheques numbers are mentioned as if, the amounts were settled through cheques bearing Nos. 001470, 000969 and 000970. In the last cash payment voucher, dated 22.11.2016, it has been stated that it is a final settlement amount, so, also in cash voucher dated 18.11.2016. But, these documents are not admitted by the respondent/complainant. It is a settled law that the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can rely only upon sterling and unimpeachable documents. But, the cash payment vouchers are not of such category. Those documents have to be proved by tendering proper oral evidence at the time of trial.

7. The argument on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has not specifically denied his case under the reply notice and no substantive document was filed by the complai