IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 12.09.2016

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

Crl.R.C.No.727 of 2016

and Crl.MP.No.5435 of 2016

R.Mathiyalagan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Jayamani

.. Respondent

Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w

401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 05.04.2016 made in

Crl.MP.No.5521 of 2015 in MC.No.53 of 2015 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur.

For Petitioner

: Mr.A.Sundravadhanan.

For Respondent : Mr.V.Sekar.

ORDER

The Criminal revision is directed against the order passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur made in

Crl.MP.No.5521 of 2015 in MC.No.53 of 2015 dated 05.04.2016,

dismissing discharge application filed by the revision

petitioner.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly

contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that

Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and the consequential

notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The cheque

filed by the respondent is non-CTS cheque, the cheque presented

by the respondent cannot be accepted for payment, in view of the

bar imposed by the Reserve Bank of India which had issued

specific direction that the customer is directed to return the

non-CTS cheque and replace with the CTS cheque. The cheque was

issued to the petitioner in the year 2002 and the same was

presented and returned in the year 2015 and all other cheques

prior and after this cheque in issue was en-cashed in the year

2002 itself. Since, the cheque is non-CTS cheque, the

present application filed by the petitioner is liable to be

allowed, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application,

the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the trial

Court and to allow the criminal revision.

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

3.The learned counsel for the respondent would mainly

contend, even though it is not CTS cheque, it is presented for

payment and the cheque was returned as dishonoured. It is a

cheque as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, dismissed the application and there

is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial Court

and the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the revision

petition.

4.On reading of the order passed by the trial Court, it is

clearly seen that the petition for discharge was filed only

after commencement of trial, the complainant before the trial

Court was examined and marked Exs.A1 to A5. In this petition

Branch Manager, Lakshmi Villas Bank Mr.Loganathan was examined

as PW1 and Exs.1 to 3 documents were marked. It is revealed

that the present cheque in question was presented for collection

before the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Mettur Brach and the cheque was

returned with an endorsement "Exceeds Arrangements". The

complainant issued notice demanding the amount, after issuance

of notice no amount was paid. Hence, the complaint was lodged

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this

case, cheque in question was issued to the complainant and it

was presented for payment and the cheque was dishonoured as it

exceeds arrangements and cheque was not returned by the banker

stating that the cheque was not CTS cheque, further the cheque

was not returned on the above said ground or not, but returned

as per RBI guidelines. There is no restriction by the RBI

restricting the use of old cheque/non CTS issued to the

customer.

5.In view of the above circumstances, the cheque in

question was returned only on the ground exceeds arrangements

and cheque was not returned by the Banker on the ground, it is

not CTS cheque and it should not be used by the customer.

6.This Court is of the considered view, dishonour of cheque

by the banker stating as it exceeds arrangements