ORDER :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Crl.O.P.No.31884 of 2022 has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No.174 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Magisterial Level), Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode and Crl.O.P.No.7632 of 2023 has been filed to quash the final report in C.C.No.1475 of 2023 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The petition in Crl.O.P.No.31884 of 2022 has been filed by the accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the respondent is that his wife is the proprietrix of the concern and has been acquainted with the petitioner for the past fifteen years. While being so, on 23.04.2022, the respondent lent a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs in cash to the petitioner. At the time of borrowal of the said loan, the petitioner handed over a unfilled signed cheque. Thereafter, on instructions of the petitioner, the cheque was filled up and presented for collection. However, the same was returned dishonoured with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by the Drawer”. After causing a statutory notice, the respondent filed a complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

3. The petition in Crl.O.P.No.7632 of 2023 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1475 of 2023, initiated by the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 420, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC read with Section 120(b) of IPC. The second respondent herein is none other than the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.31884 of 2022 and the petitioner herein is none other than the respondent in Crl.O.P.No.31884 of 2022. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the cheque was stolen by the petitioner and thereafter misused, while, on the other hand, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated on the basis of the dishonour of the said cheque, which forms the cause of action in Crl.O.P.No.31884 of 2022. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass a common order in both petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.31884 of 2022 submitted that the loan amount was lent by one T.Marappan, whose wife is the Proprietrix of the respondent concern. However, the said T.Marappan, as a holder in due course of the cheque, has lodged the complaint. The alleged cheque was stolen by the respondent and was presented for collection as if the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs. Therefore, the said complaint preferred by the said T.Marappan is not maintainable. Even assuming that the alleged cheque was issued for security and the same was filled up by the said T.Marappan, including the date, amount and etc., and presented for collection. The cheque was originally issued in favour of the respondent, which is a proprietrix concern and the same cannot be made over in favour of T.Marappan and as holder in due course of the cheque, the said T.Marappan has no locus standi to maintain the complaint as he is neither an authorised signatory nor an agent of the respondent. The petitioner was not even present at the relevant point of time and he was in another State attending a conference. Hence, the petitioner never borrowed any loan and did not issue any cheque. Therefore, the alleged cheque was stolen and subsequently misused by the respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7632 of 2023 and the respondent in Crl.O.P.No.31884 of 2022 submitted that the cheque was presented for collection on 14.07.2022 and was returned dishonoured on 15.07.2022 with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by the Drawer”. Thereafter, on 20.07.2022, the respondent caused a statutory notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was received by the petitioner on 23.07.2022. On receipt of the said notice, the respondent lodged complaint before the f