Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2837 (MAD)

S. A. Balan v. G. Kaliappan

2008-08-05

S.K.KRISHNAN

body2008
Judgment : Per S.K. KRISHNAN, J. This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner herein to call for the records relating to C.C. No. 4901 of 2004 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. 2. As against the petitioner herein, the respondent one by name G. Kaliappan filed a Private Complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner herein committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now, the petitioner herein approached this Court and filed this Petition for quashing the Complaint in C.C. No. 4901 of 2004. 3. When this petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no cause of action arises in favour of the respondent herein to initiate proceedings against the petitioner herein under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the Private Complaint filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after dishonour of the cheque issued by the petitioner herein, the cheque was returned to the respondent on 2. 2004. For issuing legal notice against the petitioner herein, the time limitation is within 15 days from the date of information from the Bank. However, it is alleged that the respondent herein issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 3. 2004. However the said notice was despatched by the respondent only on 4. 2004 which is after expiry of the date stipulated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, no cause of action is arisen in favour of the respondent herein to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Uniplas India Ltd. and Others v. State (Govt. Therefore, no cause of action is arisen in favour of the respondent herein to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Uniplas India Ltd. and Others v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) and Another, AIR 2001 SC 2625 : (2001) SCC (Crl) 955 : 2001 (3) CTC 309, wherein it is held as follows: “Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 and 142(b) Cause of action – What is Cause of action would commence on payee making, demand on drawer by giving notice in writing demanding payment on dishonoured cheque within 15 days of information of such dishonour – Crucial issue would be whether notice was issued before expiry 15 days or after expiry 15 days of information of dishonour – No cause of action arises if no notice is sent after 15 days – Any notice sent after expiry of 15 days need not snowball into cause of action. (Paras 12, 13 and 14).” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies on another judgment of Jharkhand High Court in M.A. Ansari v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2005) 2 Bankmann 113 . 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The only point to be decided in this petition is whether the said notice issued by the respondent herein is after the expiry of the stipulated time. If it is so, whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner herein are liable to be quashed? 6. It is already discussed above as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the materials placed before the Court, it would reveal that the notice issued by the respondent herein was only after the expiry of the stipulated time referred to under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, no cause of action arises in favour of the respondent to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner under the Provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under such circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the respondent herein against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No. 4901 of 2004 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai are hereby quashed. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed.