Advocates:
['M/S S KAMADEVAN', 'M/S M GURUPRASAD', '', 'V IYYAPPAN', 'S ARUN PRASATH', 'NOTICE SERVED']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

CRL.O.P.NO.7474 OF 2019

AND

CRL.M.P.NO.4122 OF 2019

K.T.Selvaraj

... Petitioner/

Single Accused

Vs.

Sundari

... Respondent/

Complainant

PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482

of Cr.P.C, praying, to call for the records in C.C.No.188 of

2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Jayamkondam,

Ariyalur District and quash the same.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Kamadevan

For Respondent

: M/s.R.Shasee for

M/s.M.Guruprasad

ORDER

This petition had been filed to call for the records in

C.C.No.188 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Jayamkondam, Ariyalur District and quash the same.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted

that the Petitioner is the Accused in C.C.No.188 of 2018 before

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Jayamkondam, Ariyalur

District.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had filed a

private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument

Act in STC.No.708 of 2014. In that case, the Respondent herein

is the Accused and when she was questioned, she denied the

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

charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Therefore, trial was ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.I, Jayamkondam, Ariyalur District. Accordingly witnesses

were examined. The Accused was questioned under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. in STC.No.708 of 2014 and she had answered the same. At

this stage, she filed a complaint under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act against the Petitioner herein, in

C.C.No.188 of 2018 on the ground that the cheques belonging to

her in STC.No.708 of 2014 were misplaced and they were taken

away by the Petitioner herein, based on which, the criminal

complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,

had been filed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited

the attention of this Court to the contents of the compliant

preferred by the Respondent and also the sworn statement filed

by her.

4. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner that he issued a statutory notice under Section 138

of Negotiable Instrument Act. Though the Respondent received the

notice, she did not choose to reply to the same. Therefore, the

complaint was filed. In the complaint, when summons were served,

the Respondent appeared before the Trial Court and denied the

claim of the Petitioner herein under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act. Therefore, the Trial was ordered by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Jayamkondam, Ariyalur District. The

trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, was

concluded and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Jayamkondam,

Ariyalur District, has convicted the Respondent under 138

Negotiable Instrument Act on 22.08.2019.

5. Aggrieved by the same, she had preferred an appeal

before the learned Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and the case is

still pending. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner

seeks to quash the complaint filed by the Respondent, since it

is an afterthought and a counter blast to his complaint under

138 Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned Counsel for the

Petitioner also invited the attention of this Court to the

ingredients of the complaint, which has been filed along with

the typed set of papers.

6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently

objects to quash the complaint in C.C.No.188 of 2018 on the

ground that the case has to be allowed to proceed further. When

the Petitioner herein intended to file a complaint under NI Act,

he had caused the statutory notice as per Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. The Respondent having received the

notice did not choose to reply. Subsequently, she had appeared

before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.