IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.10.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Crl.O.P.No.18790 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12410 & 12411 of 2022 R.Savithri, W/o.R.Radha @ Radha Ramalingam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Madhan Raj, S/o.K.Ramalingam, 2. R.Radha @ Radha Ramalingam, S/o.D.M.Ramalingam ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in S.T.C.No.5766 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem and quash the charges made in the final report filed in S.TC.No.5766 of 2021.

For Petitioner : M/s.N.Jothi for Mr.S.Vinod For Respondent 1 : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent 2 : No appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.5766 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem which taken cognizance under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act r/w.Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

2. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has lodged a complaint under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act r/w.Section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that the accused have borrowed money from 18.03.2011 onwards, from the complainant subsequently on various dates and various amounts through Hindu Undivided Family Bank Account. Thereafter, the accused repaid the amount in part. As per the accounts maintained by the complainant as on 07.12.2019 the accused have to pay a sum of Rs.91,06,000/- towards principal and interest, on negotiation and waiver of Rs.1,06,000/- the accused has to pay a sum of Rs.90,00,000/-. The accused also acknowledged, approved the debt and executed two promissory notes each for Rs.45,00,000/- in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay Rs.90,00,000/- with a interest at the rate of Rs.1/- per hundred per month. Thereafter, on 08.05.2021, the accused delivered the post dated cheque dated 27.07.2021 for a sum of Rs.40 lakhs, in order to discharge part of the accused HUF debt to the complainant. When the cheque was presented for collection on 27.07.2021, the same was returned with an endorsement of 'Exceeds Arrangement' and the complainant received the returned cheque and its dishonour intimation on 29.07.2021. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice to the accused on 10.08.2021 and the same was suitably replied by the accused on 16.08.2021. Again, the complainant issued a rejoinder notice to the accused on 21.08.2021, but, thereafter, the amount was not repaid. Hence, he filed complaint. In fact, this petitioner is not a signatory and there is no any HUF as alleged by the Complainant/1st Respondent. This petitioner is not a signatory to the cheque, she is no way connected with the transaction between the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the pending proceedings in S.TC.No.5766 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem is liable to be quashed.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that this petitioner is not a signatory and the cheque was not issued by the petitioner and she is no way connected with the transaction between the 1st and 2nd respondents. Already, legal notice was issued to the petitioner and the same was suitably replied by stating that she is not a signatory of cheque and she was no way connected with the transaction and the cheque was issued by the 2nd respondent. Inspite of that the 1st respondent filed complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem and the same was taken cognizance without any materials as against this petitioner. Even according to the complainant, there is no averments to show that as to how this petitioner is liable for criminal action when she was not a drawer or signatory to the cheques. Therefore, the pending proceedings in S.T.C.No.5766 of 2021 is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the following judgements: i) R.Priyadharshini vs LIC Housing Finance Lt