IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.10081 & 19372 of 2017 Crl.OP.No.10081 of 2017 T.R.Pachamuthu @ Paari Vendhar ... Petitioner Vs.

S.Mukunchand Bothra ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the proceedings as against the petitioner pending in C.C.No.1032 of 2017 pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai for an offence under section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganeshkumar For Respondent : No appearance Crl.OP.No.19372 of 2017

1) Vendar Movies Production Office at Basement of Doshi Garden, Vadapalani, Chennai.

2) S.Madhan ... Petitioners Vs.

S.Mukunchand Bothra ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.1032 of 2017 VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and to quash the same subjective to the petitioner.

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh For Respondent : No appearance

COMMON ORDER

Both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.1032 of 2017 pending on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai for an offence under section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as against the petitioners.

2. The Respondent died. On behalf of him, one, M.Gagan Bothra, who is the son of the deceased respondent, is representing and he submitted a memo before this court seeking permission to appear as party-in-person on behalf of the respondent. When the matter was posted on 06.10.2023, he argued the criminal original petitions and sought for adjournment to produce some documents to show that the 4th accused is also a partner of the 1st accused partnership firm. However, today he is not present.

3. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by Accused No.1,2 & 4. As alleged in the complaint, all these accused persons committed offences punishable under section 138 r/w Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The crux of the case is that the said accused are the partners of partnership company and borrowed loan for interest for business purpose. At the time of borrowal of loan they had also executed a Promissory Note in favour of the respondent. They had borrowed total sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- and also entered into an agreement on 11.01.2016. In order to repay the borrowed loan amount, they had issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/-. Both the cheques were presented for collection and both were returned dishonour with an endorsement "Instrument outdated/stale''. After sending statutory notice, the respondent lodged the complaint.

4. In respect of Crl.O.P.No.10081 of 2017, the petitioner has been arrayed as 4th Accused. On perusal of the complaint in the short cause title, he was not shown as partner whereas in the third paragraph of the complaint, he was showed as one of the partner. On seeing the body of the complaint, stated that the petitioner only had given assurance and borrowed loan for the purpose of running business. On perusal of reply notice sent by the petitioner reveals that he had no connection with the first accused company and he is not the partner of the 1st accused. He never been part of the company as alleged in the complaint. Further he is neither a partner nor signatory to the cheque. The respondent also not submitted any piece of evidence to show that the petitioner/4th accused is partner of 1st accused.

5. The cheques were signed by the 2nd petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.19372 of

2017 on behalf of the first petitioner. Both cheques were presented for collection and the same were returned dishonoured with an endorsement ''Instrument outdated/stale''. It means both the cheques were presented after a period of 90 days. Therefore, both the cheques became invalid. As such, the offence under section 138