IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.11.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

Crl.O.P.No.10145 of 2019

G.V.Adimoolam

...Petitioner

Versus

C.Dayalan

...Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in STC No.461 of 2018

on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court – II, Erode

and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Jugal Kumar

For Respondent : Mr. Ganesh

For Mr.N.Manokaran

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking for quashing the

proceedings in STC No.461 of 2018 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate, [Fast Track Court – II], Erode.

2. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint

under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner/accused for

an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the

'NI Act') before the learned Judicial Magistrate [Fast Track

Court – II], Erode.

3. The case of the respondent/complainant is that the

petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- from the

respondent/complainant and the accused issued a cheque dated

17.08.2018 bearing cheque No.179288 drawn on IDBI Bank, Erode

Branch, promising to repay the aforesaid amount on demand by the

respondent. When the said cheque was presented for encashment by

the respondent through his bankers viz., M/s.Dhanalaxmi Bank

Limited, Veerappanchatram Branch, the same was dishonoured for

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

the reason ''Payment Stopped by Drawer". Therefore, the

respondent issued a legal notice dated 10.09.2018 to the

petitioner. After receiving the said notice, the petitioner

sent a reply notice dated 17.09.2018 which according to the

respondent, contained false allegations. Therefore, he filed a

private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court

below.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

cheque book of the petitioner was lost on 14.05.2018 in front of

a Xerox Shop, on Kumarapalayam-Salem Main Road after taking

xerox copy of the documents. Subsequently, the petitioner

lodged a complaint before the Kumarapalayam Police Station on

16.05.2018 and he received a CSR.No.108/2018 on the same day.

Thereafter, he received a legal notice from the respondent

stating that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- on

17.07.2018 from the respondent herein and one post dated cheque

was issued by the petitioner/accused and the same was returned

with an endorsement “Payment Stopped by Drawer”. Therefore, the

respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.

Act. He further submits that there is no relationship between

the petitioner and respondent herein. Hence, he prayed to quash

the said private complaint.

5.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that

on 16.05.2018, the petitioner has not given any complaint before

the Kumarapalayam Police Station, which was given by one

Vijayaraj stating that the cheque book of the petitioner was

lost on 14.05.2018. Hence, he vehemently opposed to quash the

proceedings.

6.Heard both sides.

7. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner

has not given any complaint before the Kumarapalayam Police

Station, which was given by some other person namely one

Vijayaraj and CSR No.108 of 2018 was issued and the same was

enclosed in Page No.11 of the typed set of papers. Further, in

that complaint, he has not mentioned any other persons name.

But, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that after filing of this complaint only,

the respondent fabricated one cheque and initiated the

proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. It appears that

the petitioner has also issued a reply notice to the respondent

before initi