Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1124 (MAD)

K. Rajmohan v. N. Jayathilagam

2000-11-15

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2000
ORDER: This original petition is filed to quash the proceedings pending before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, relating to the complaint in C.C.No.3028 of 1999. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case was based on the cheque issued by the petitioner/ accused to the respondent/ complainant; that the cheque was presented through the respondent bankers and it was dishonoured; that thereafter, two telegraphic notices were issued by the respondent; and that on the basis of the alleged non-compliance of the said notices, a private complaint was filed by the respondent before the Court below. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the two telegraphic notice did not contain the requisite particulars, as contemplated under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that despite the reply sent by the petitioner seeking for the particulars, the same were not furnished by the respondent; and that in the telegraphic notices, the interest so demanded also makes the notice bad under Sec. 138 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Suman Sethi v. Ajay K.Churiwal and another, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 828. 4. Countering to the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that it is true that two telegraphic notices were issued to the petitioner; that they did not state the amount of the cheque, but the same would not invalidate the notices as bad and apart from that the interest so asked for in the said notices along with the cheque amount will not make the notices bad; and that the notices were issued under the provisions of Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Relying on the decision reported in P.V.R.S.Manikumar v. Krishna Reddy, 1999 Crl. L.J. 2010, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the notices did not contain the existing liability, it cannot be invalidated, and has pointed out that though the interest was asked for along with the cheque amount, the proceedings are proper and the same cannot be quashed. 5. Admittedly, the respondent herein preferred a private complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner bearing his claim on the alleged cheque issued by the petitioner/ accused herein for a sum of Rs.1,50,000 on 6.3.1997. 5. Admittedly, the respondent herein preferred a private complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner bearing his claim on the alleged cheque issued by the petitioner/ accused herein for a sum of Rs.1,50,000 on 6.3.1997. From the perusal of the available materials, it could be seen that the respondent herein issued a notice, containing the following contents: “As per your instruction cheque deposited in bank. Cheque dishonoured on 22nd February, 1999. Settle the amount with interest within fifteen days. Otherwise necessary action will follow.” 6. It is also admitted by the respondent that the second notice was also issued as found in that telegraphic message to the petitioner herein on the same date. Despite the fact that a reply was sent by the petitioner on 8.3.1999 seeking for further particulars, admittedly no further particulars were furnished by the respondent/ complainant, but instead, the complainant has filed the above private complaint, which is under challenge herein. 7. As seen from the telegraphic message, it is clear that it did not contain the necessary particulars. It is true that the cheque amount was not stated therein. The contention of the petitioner is that in the notice there was also a demand for the interest along with the cheque amount and hence the notices have to be branded as bad. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court referred to above. But the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Though the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently, argued on this point, it is found that the notices did not specifically contain the cheque amount and so also the interest amount, which should normally be mentioned in the case of this nature. Unfortunately, the two telegraphic notices contain neither the cheque amount nor any break-up particulars nor the particulars of interest amount. 9. In the above circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Apex Court, relied on by the petitioner, the Court is of the view that the notices issued under Sec.138 of the Act are bereft of necessary particulars with regard to the cheque amount, break up details, interest amount, etc., and therefore, the two telegraphic notices issued by the respondent’ complainant are not proper notices, as contemplated under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but they are defective notices. The respondent/ complainant cannot have a cause of action on the basis of these notices. Therefore, the proceedings has to be quashed. 10. In the result, this Crl.O.P. is allowed. Complaint in C.C.No.3028 of 1999 pending on the file of the II.M.M., Egmore, Madras, is quashed. Connected Crl.M.P. is closed.