Advocates:
['M/s S Deenadhayalan', '', 'M Viji', '', 'M/S R SURIYA NARAYANAN', '', 'S Saravanakumar', 'PH']

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.508 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATE : 26.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.508 of 2020

N.Kannan

.. Petitioner/petitioner-complainant

Vs.

M.Arumugam

.. Respondent/Respondent-Accused

Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397

r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the Fast

Track Court (Magisterial Level), Pattukkottai, in C.M.P.No.362 of

2020 in Unnumbered S.T.C.No. of 2020, dated 13.08.2020,

dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner and to

set aside the same.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

For Respondents

: Mr.R.Surya Narayan

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to call for the

records of the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Pattukkottai,

in C.M.P.No.362 of 2020 in Unnumbered S.T.C.No. of 2020, dated

13.08.2020, dismissing the private complaint filed by the

petitioner and to set aside the same.

2.The case

of the revision petitioner is that the

respondent / proposed accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-

the revision petitioner / complainant and undertake to repay the

same within a period of three weeks. After three weeks, the

petitioner / complainant approached the respondent / proposed

accused and demanded the money back, on that date, ie. 27.01.2020,

the respondent / proposed accused issued a cheque for a sum of

Rs.6,00,000/-. When the cheque was presented for collection on

30.01.2020, the same was returned on 31.01.2020 with an

endorsement “kindly contact drawer, drawee bank and please

present again”.

3. The revision petitioner / complainant approached the

petitioner and informed him the dishonour of the cheque and on his

request, again, he presented the cheque after one month and the

1/5

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

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.508 of 2020

same was again returned on 28.02.2020 with an endorsement “kindly

contact drawer, drawee bank and please present again”. When the

revision petitioner/ complainant approached the Bank officials in

person, the Bank Manager issued a certificate stating that “the

account is in inoperative status for the past two years”. The

complainant issued a statutory notice to the respondent / proposed

accused on 16.03.2020, the notice was served on the respondent/

proposed accused on 19.03.2020. After the receipt of the notice,

the respondent / proposed accused neither replied nor returned the

cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the

statutory notice.

4. Hence, the private complaint was filed against the

respondent / proposed accused under Section 138 NI Act. The trial

Court refused to take the case on file and dismissed the complaint

under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Against the order, the petitioner

preferred this revision.

5.On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that

knowing fully well that the respondent's “bank account is in

inoperating status”, he has issued a cheque to the revision

petitioner / complainant. The cheque was presented before the

Bank twice within the time limit. The respondent / proposed

accused failed to give a reply notice. The respondent / proposed

accused did not repay the amount and prayed the trial Court to be

directed to take the case / private complaint on file.

6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on

the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi

Dyechem V. State of Gujarat and other reported in (2012) 13 SCC

375, it is stated as follows:

“16.1. This Court has in the decisions referred to

above taken note of situations and contingencies arising

out of deliberate acts of omission or commission on the

part of the drawers of the cheques which would inevitably

result in the dishonour of the cheque issued by them. For

instance this Court has held that if after issue of the

che