SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Rajesh Kumar, J
DR. CV. JAMES – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Land Marvel Homes – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.7037 of 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [List of names]
For the Respondents: [List of names]

A cheque returned with the endorsement 'Refer to Drawer' due to it being non-CTS does not attract the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if it was not issued for a legally enforceable debt.

Headnote:{ - First Paragraph: Statute Analysis (Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2002 and Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure), Facts of the Case (The petitioner borrowed Rs.25,00,000/- and issued a cheque dated 06.10.2021 that was returned dishonoured with 'Refer to Drawer'), Findings of Court (The court quashed the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act as the cheque was a non-CTS cheque), - Second Paragraph: Issues (Whether the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is attracted), Ratio Decidendi (The court held that the offence is not attracted because the cheque was not valid for encashment and was returned with the endorsement 'Refer to Drawer'), - Last Paragraph: Result (The case is quashed and the petition is allowed) }

Table of Content
1. facts of the cheque bounce case (Para 1 , 2)

ORDER

This criminal original petition is filed to quash the proceedings in STC.No.3479 of 2022, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Magistrate Level, Tiruppur.

2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2002 and under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged that the accused while carrying on business and being a customer of the complainant, used to borrow money and repay the loan amount. While so, on 06.05.2021, the petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for his business and family needs. He assured repayment within a period of three months with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The accused also executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant. On various demand made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- dated 06.10.2021. When presented for collection, the cheque was returned dishonoured with the endorsement ‘Refer to Drawer”. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint, and the same was taken on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur. The accused raised the sole ground that, upon receipt of statutory notice, he sent a reply notice stating that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. Moreover, the cheque was a non-CTS cheque. Hence, it was returned dishonoured with the endorsement ‘Refer to Drawer’. It is further contended that, at the time of issuance, the cheque was not valid, as non-CTS cheque were not in use after the year 2010.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the cheque was not returned on the ground that it was not a non-CTS cheque. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner/accused cannot be sustained. Since the cheque was returned with the endorsement ‘Refer to Drawer’, the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is clearly attracted as against the accused. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court made in Crl.O.P.No.7037 of 2020 dated 25.08.2020 in the case of M/s.Land Marvel Homes & Ors. Vs. D.Ashok Kumar. In this case, this Court held that the cheque was not returned on the ground that it is a non-CTS cheque and the same was returned for the reason ‘funds insufficient’. Therefore, the offence under Section

138 of NI Act is clearly made out.

4. On perusal of material records, it is seen that the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards repayment of the loan amount. The cheque, dated 06.10.2021, was drawn on ICICI Bank, Annanagar Branch, Chennai. It was returned with the endorsement ‘Refer to Drawer’ as the cheque was a non-CTS cheque and, therefore, it was not valid for encashment. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is not attracted as against the petitioner/accused. It is also seen that the cheque leaf had been issued prior to 2010 and the same was presented for collection. Hence, according to the petitioner, the cheque was not issued towards any legally enforceable debts. In fact, after receipt of the statutory notice, the accused issued a reply notice dated

14.11.2021. The relevant portion of the said notice is as follows:

j';fsJ mwptpg;gpd; ehyhtJ gj;jpapy; brhd;d tptuj;ij bghUj;J vJt[k; cz;ik my;y vdJ fl;rpf;fhuu; mtuJ fhnrhiyia tR{Yf;F jhf;fy; bra;a ve;j xU cWjpiaa[k; j'; fsJ fl;rpf;fhuUf;F mspf;ftpy;iy/ Vbddpy;

j'; fs; fl;rpf;fhuiu vkJ fl;rpf;fhuUf;F bjhpahJ/

cz;ikapy ; j'; fsJ mwptpg;gpy ; brhd;d fhnrhiy MdJ vdJ fl;rpf;fhuu ; mtuJ cjtpahsUk ; cwtpdUkhd mtuJ j';if kfd; b$ar;re;jpud; s/o. bry;tg;gd; vd;gtuplk; fle;j 2006 Mk; tUlk; Mf!;l; khjk; mspf;fg;gl;l fhnrhiy MFk;/ jw;rkak; nkw;go b$ar;re;jpuDf;F vkJ fl;rpf;fhuUf;Fk; nkw;go b$ar;re;jpudpd; Fw;wKW ek;gpf;if nkhroahy; Vw;gl;l kd tpnuhjk ; kw;Wk ; fUj;J ntWghL fhuzkhf nkw;go fl;rpf;fhuuJ Finance rpy g';Fjhu; vd mwpatUk; nkw;go b$ar;re;jpudpd; beU';fpa ez;guhd uh$nfhghyd;

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top