Judgment : The accused concerned in Crime No.85 of 1990 of Vellore South Police Station has filed this petition under Sec.482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. Short facts are as follows: The respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offence under Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. The learned Magistrate had directed investigation by Police under Sec.156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, the respondent Police had registered the case in Crime No.85 of 1990. To quash the same, the petition is filed. 3. The allegations in the complaint referred to supra are as follows: The complainant is a practising lawyer. He was engaged by the accused to conduct Land Acquisition cases on his behalf before the tribunal at Cuddalore and after finality of proceedings at Cuddalore, the matter was taken in appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. When the complainant pressed for settle-ment of fees, the accused represented to the complainant that he had no funds to his credit and that he would pay the complainant on realisation of the amounts from Neyveli Lignite Corporation on production of the certificate issued by the High Court, as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The accused came to the residence of the complainant on 23. 1990 and issued a cheque for Rs.68,000 drawn at the instance of the complainant in the name of his son Pugazhendhi, towards final settlement of his fees. While issuing the cheque, the accused represented to the complainant that the cheque will be duly honoured. He further represented the complainant to present the cheque after he realised the amount drawn by the High Court in his favour. Believing the representation of the accused, the complainant arranged to obtain a certificate from the High Court and handed over the same to the accused. After the amount was realised, the accused requested the complainant to present the cheque for encashment. On the strength of the assurance and on the representation of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque for collection and it was returned by the Bankers with an endorsement ‘payment countermanded’. After the amount was realised, the accused requested the complainant to present the cheque for encashment. On the strength of the assurance and on the representation of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque for collection and it was returned by the Bankers with an endorsement ‘payment countermanded’. The action of the accused was with a view to defraud him of his lawful dues and hence he has committed offence punishable under Sec.420, I.P.C. The inducement to obtain the certificate and the handing over of the cheque were at Vellore. Hence the complaint. 4. Mr.M. Karpagavinayakam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that according to the allegations made in the complaint, the cheque was issued towards the final settlement of fees, at the time when the complainant pressed for settlement of fees and if that is so, it was a past debt for which the cheque was issued and if it was dishonoured, no offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. is made out. He would further submit that the arrangement to obtain a certificate from the High Court has nothing to do with the issuance of the cheque. I have heard Mr.Raja, the learned Government Advocate on the above aspects. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. To consider the submission made by Mr.Karpagavinayagam, certain allegations made in the complaint need extracted. In the complaint it is alleged as follows: “The complainant is a practising Advocate. The complainant submits that he was engaged by the accused to conduct land acquisition cases on his behalf in L.A.O.P.Nos.26 of 1982, 167 of 1982 and 174 of 1982 before the tribunal at Cuddalore and after finality of proceedings at Cuddalore the matter was taken in appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. When the complainant pressed for settlement of his fees, the accused represented to the complainant that he had no funds to his credit and that he would pay the complainant on realisation of the amounts from Neyveli Lignite Corporation on production of the certificate issued by the High Court, as per the directions of the Supreme Court.” In paragraph 2 of the complaint, it is alleged as follows: “The accused came to the residence of the complainant herein at Vellore on 23. 1990 and issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.68,000 drawn at the instance of the complainant in the name of his son Mr.Pughazhendhi towards final settlement of fees.” The above allegations would clearly show that the issue of the cheque for Rs.68,000 in favour of the son of the complainant was towards final settlement of fees.” .5. In paragraph 2 of the complaint, it is further alleged that while issuing the cheque, the accused represented to the complainant that the cheque will be duly honoured and that the accused further represented to the complainant to present the cheque after realisation of the amount drawn by the High Court in his favour. It is further alleged that believing the representation of the accused, the complainant arranged to obtain the certificate from the High Court and handed over the same to the accused. So far as the issuance of the cheque is concerned, it was towards the final settlement of fees due to the complainant. The other representation was that the cheque will be duly honoured. The obtaining of a certificate from the High Court and handing over the same to the accused on believing the representation of the accused have nothing to do with the issuance of the cheque, for the services already rendered. Only regarding encashment, the allegations are that the accused requested the complainant to present the cheque after he realised the amount drawn by the High Court in his favour. .6. In the complaint, the notice issued on behalf of the complainant dated 8. 1990 has been referred to. The copy of the notice is filed in the types set. In paragraph 2 of that notice, it is stated as follows: .Thiru R.Margabandu, Advocate, asked to settle his fees in the above matter, you told him that you had no funds, you would deposit the cheque issued by Neyveli Lignite Corporation, realise the amounts and pay the fees. Consequently, you received the certificate from the High Court and the cheque from Neyveli Lignite Corporation through Thiru R.Margabandu, Advocate and on his instruction you issued a cheque for Rs.68,000 in favour of M.Pugazhendhi, Advocate....". The allegations in the notice would clearly show that the cheque was issued in settlement of the fees from the services rendered by the complainant in discharge of his duties, as an advocate appearing for the accused. The allegations in the notice would clearly show that the cheque was issued in settlement of the fees from the services rendered by the complainant in discharge of his duties, as an advocate appearing for the accused. This would also make it clear that the cheque was issued towards services already rendered. .7. In Samuel Raj v. The Inspector of Police (Crime), Valliyur, 1991 L.W. (Crl.) 358, Justice S.T.Ramalingam had observed as follows: ."According to the learned counsel, in order to attract Sec.420, I.P.C., the complainant should have been deceived and thereby dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. The cheque was given to discharge an existing debt. 3y receiving the cheque, the complainant has not parted with any valuable security. Receiving useless security for an existing debt cannot form the basis for an offence punishable under Sec.420, I.P.C.". 8. In Gopu Seshasayee v. State, 1977 T.N.L.J. 510, this Court had occasion to consider the ingredients of Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code. In that case, the cheques were issued for a pre-existing debt and not for monies received on the dates of the issue of cheques. So, it was held that it would not come within the purview of Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code. 9. Considering the facts and materials available in this case, I am clear that this case would fall squarely within the purview of the above two rulings. Inasmuch as the cheque was issued towards services already rendered, it would amount to issuance of a cheque for a past debt and so, the offence under Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, the further investigationsin this case are liable to be quashed. 10. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No.85 of 1990 of Vellore South Police Station shall stand quashed.