BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 07.11.2025 Delivered on : 27.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR CRL.A(MD).No. 238 of 2025 P.Rajesh Samuel : Appellant Vs.

M.Janat Amala Arul Jothi : Respondent Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 419 of B.N.S.S., (378 of Cr.P.C)., to call for the records relating to the impugned judgment, dated 29.11.2024 made in S.T.C.No.973 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, acquitting the respondent/accused and set aside the same.

For Appellant : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Sasikumar, For Respondent : Mr.J.David Ganesan

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.973 of 2017, dated 29.11.2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, in acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.The appellant, who is the complainant, filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the respondent for the offence under Section

138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred as per their ranking/status before the trial Court.

4.The complainant's case is :

a) The complainant and the accused's husband George are close friends and on account of that friendship, the accused and her husband approached the complainant in the month of April 2016 requesting to lend a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to settle the loans obtained from private parties and for settling the home loan in the bank. Though the complainant expressed that he did not have such a huge amount, both of them expressed that both will have to face severe legal consequences and they have no other source to meet out the severe financial crunch.

b) The complainant, considering the helpless condition of the accused and her husband, pledged his jewels and raised funds and from that amount along with his savings, lent a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs, on 30.05.2016 to the accused and requested the accused to return the amount within one year as the complainant's bank would take action against him for which, the accused promised to return the same on or before 31.07.2017. The complainant approached the accused demanding the return of the loan amount of Rs.15 lakhs for which, the accused issued a cheque, dated 28.03.2017 for Rs.15 lakhs drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sathankulam, promising the complainant that the cheque will be honoured on presentation to the bank. The complainant believing the words of the accused, presented the cheque for collection on 28.03.2017 through his bank State Bank of India, Nazareth Branch, but the cheque was returned dishonored as 'funds insufficient' on 04.04.2017. The complainant sent a legal notice, dated 03.05.2017 to the accuse demanding her to pay the amount covered by the cheque, but the accused having received the said notice on 04.05.2017, neither send any reply nor paid the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the above complaint against the accused for the alleged offence under Sections 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon receiving the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusing the records, upon satisfied that there existed a prima facie case, took the case on file in S.T.C.No.973 of 2017 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for issuance of summons to the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of the records were furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., on free of cost. When the accused was questioned about the offence alleged against him, he denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty.

6. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and one Radhakrishnan as P.W.2 and exhibited 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The accused examined two witnesses Thiru.Thillai Buvaneshwaran