IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 20.09.2021

PRONOUNCED ON: 29.09.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

Crl.O.P.No. 30627 of 2015

And

Crl.M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015

Mr. M.G.Mohamed Javid

... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

Mrs. Nayeem Hannan

..Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No. 485 of 2015 on the

file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-

IV, George Town, Chennai – 600 001.

For Petitioner :

Mr. M.Mohammed Rafi

For Respondent :

Ms. S.Thamizharasi

ORDER

This Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure seeking to call for the records and quash

C.C.No. 485 of 2015 now pending on the file of Metropolitan

Magistrate IV FTC, George Town, Chennai.

2.

The petitioner is the accused in the said calendar

case. The respondent had filed a private complaint against the

petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act.

3.

It is the case of the respondent that the parties had

entered into a business arrangement and the respondent had

received a sum of Rs.10,75,000/- as investment in the

business. There were some negotiations and it was agreed to

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

reduce the amount to Rs.8,75,000/-. The petitioner had issued

four cheques all dated 11.12.2014. The cheques were dishonoured.

Notice was issued and thereafter, the complaint was filed.

4.

It is claimed by the petitioner that the cheques were

dishonoured on 13.12.2014 and notice should have been issued in

accordance with the proviso of Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881 within a period of 30 days. However, the

notice in the instant case had been issued on behalf of the

respondent on 13.01.2015 which was after the period of 30 days.

It was therefore contended that the complaint is not

maintainable and consequently, the calendar case should be

struck off or rather quashed.

5.

Heard arguments advanced by Mr. M.Mohammed Rafi,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S.Thamizharasi,

learned counsel for the respondent.

6.

The facts are not disputed. There were some business

transactions between the petitioner and the respondent and after

negotiations, the petitioner herein was under obligation to pay

a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- to the respondent herein. In this

connection, the petitioner herein had issued four cheques for a

sum of Rs.2/- Lakhs, Rs.2/- lakhs, Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.3/-

lakhs each, all dated 11.12.2014 towards discharge of the said

amount of Rs.8,75,000/-. Those cheques were presented for

payment. They were returned unpaid on 13.12.2014 with the

endorsement “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the respondent

had issued legal notice on 13.01.2015.

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Mohammed

Rafi pointed out that the notice had not been issued within the

period of 30 days as stipulated in proviso (b) to Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

8.

The learned counsel Ms. S.Thamizharasi for the

respondent however contended that the notice had been issued

within the period of 30 days and later also contended that the

information regarding dishonour of the cheques had been received

only on 15.12.2014 and therefore, the notice issued on

13.01.2015 was well within the period of 30 days and therefore

stated that the complaint was maintainable and the present

Petition seeking to quash C.C.No. 485 of 2015 should be

dismissed.

9.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is as

follows:-

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

“138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency,

etc., of funds in the account. —Where any cheque

drawn by a person on an account maintained by

him with a banker for payment of any amount of

money