IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 13.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

Crl.O.P.No.2204 of 2019

and

Crl.M.P.No.1428 of 2019

S.Vignesh

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

G.Sridharan

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in S.T.C.No.57 of

2018 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track

Court, Tiruvallur and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Subramanian

for M/s.R.Sriram

For Respondent

: No appearance

ORDER

This Petition had been filed to call for the records in

S.T.C.No.57 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate,

Fast Track Court, Tiruvallur and quash the same.

2.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted his

arguments. As per his submission, the complaint preferred by

the Respondent is not at all maintainable. For the same, he

invited the attention of this Court to the averments in

paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition. He further submitted

that as per the complaint, the Petitioner and the Respondent

were class-mates. While so, the Petitioner wanted to start a

business and for which, the Petitioner sought the help of the

Respondent/De-facto Complainant. Therefore, the Respondent had

contributed a sum of Rs.2,76,000/-. But at that time, there was

no agreement or any written document regarding the said

transaction. Subsequently, the Respondent/Complainant did not

want to proceed with the business. Therefore, he sought money

back. At that time, the Petitioner is alleged to have executed

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

a promissory note and also issued cheques to the

Respondent/Complainant. In the complaint and the statutory

notice, these facts had been narrated. Therefore, with an

ulterior motive the Respondent had obtained acknowledgement of

debt which is not a promissory note. Instead of seeking balance

amount from the Petitioner, the Respondent had presented the

cheque issued by the Petitioner as security. Therefore, the

ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are

not made out as per the averments in the complaint.

Unfortunately, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, had

taken the complaint on file and issued summons to the Petitioner.

3.At the stage of admission, stay was granted. Notice

was also sent to the Respondent/De-facto Complainant. Today in

the list, the name of the De-facto Complainant is printed but no

one appeared for the De-facto Complainant. Hence, the learned

Counsel for the Petitioner was heard.

4.In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for

the Petitioner relied on the following rulings of the Kerala

High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:-

(i) 2002 111 Comp Cas 740 Ker [R.Sreenivasan -vs-

State of Kerala and Another]

(ii) M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani -vs- State of Kerala

and Another [Appeal (Crl.) No.1012 of 1999, dated

04.07.2006]

Based on the above said rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and the Kerala High Court, the complaint of this nature is

not maintainable. If the cheque issued by the accused was for

the security and it had been filled up and presented by the De-

facto Complainant the complaint under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act will not lie. On that ratio, learned

Counsel for the Petitioner sought to quash the Criminal

complaint.

5.On the basis of the rulings relied on by the

Petitioner, the submission of the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner is found acceptable and reasonable. Under those

circumstances, the averments in the complaint is hit by the

above said rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore,

this is a fit case to quash the complaint under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. as per the guidelines issued by the