ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the records of the Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level), Pattukkottai, in C.M.P.No.362 of 2020 in Unnumbered S.T.C.No. of 2020, dated 13.08.2020, dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner and to set aside the same.

2.The case of the revision petitioner is that the respondent / proposed accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- the revision petitioner / complainant and undertake to repay the same within a period of three weeks. After three weeks, the petitioner / complainant approached the respondent / proposed accused and demanded the money back, on that date, ie. 27.01.2020, the respondent / proposed accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. When the cheque was presented for collection on 30.01.2020, the same was returned on 31.01.2020 with an endorsement “kindly contact drawer, drawee bank and please present again”.

3. The revision petitioner / complainant approached the petitioner and informed him the dishonour of the cheque and on his request, again, he presented the cheque after one month and the same was again returned on 28.02.2020 with an endorsement “kindly contact drawer, drawee bank and please present again”. When the revision petitioner/ complainant approached the Bank officials in person, the Bank Manager issued a certificate stating that “the account is in inoperative status for the past two years”. The complainant issued a statutory notice to the respondent / proposed accused on 16.03.2020, the notice was served on the respondent/ proposed accused on 19.03.2020. After the receipt of the notice, the respondent / proposed accused neither replied nor returned the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the statutory notice.

4. Hence, the private complaint was filed against the respondent /

proposed accused under Section 138 NI Act. The trial Court refused to take the case on file and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Against the order, the petitioner preferred this revision.

5.On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that knowing fully well that the respondent's “bank account is in inoperating status”, he has issued a cheque to the revision petitioner / complainant. The cheque was presented before the Bank twice within the time limit. The respondent / proposed accused failed to give a reply notice. The respondent / proposed accused did not repay the amount and prayed the trial Court to be directed to take the case / private complaint on file.

6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Dyechem V. State of Gujarat and other reported in (2012) 13 SCC 375, it is stated as follows:

“16.1. This Court has in the decisions referred to above taken note of situations and contingencies arising out of deliberate acts of omission or commission on the part of the drawers of the cheques which would inevitably result in the dishonour of the cheque issued by them. For instance this Court has held that if after issue of the cheque the drawer closes the account it must be presumed that the amount in the account was nil hence insufficient to meet the demand of the cheque. A similar result can be brought about by the drawer changing his specimen signature given to the bank or in the case of a company by the company changing the mandate of those authorised to sign the cheques on its behalf. Such changes or alteration in the mandate may be dishonest or fraudulent and that would inevitably result in dishonour of all cheques signed by the previously authorised signatories. There is in our view no qualitative difference between a situation where the dishonour takes place on account of the substitution by a new set of authorised signatories resulting in the dishonour of the cheques already issued and another situation in which the drawer of the cheque changes his own signatures or closes the account or issues instructions to the bank not to mak