Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2965 (MAD)

Suganya v. Santhanamurugesan

2022-08-26

K.MURALI SHANKAR

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.488 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, and quash the same as illegal.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.488 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindigul, and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.488 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. 3. The respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The case of the prosecution is that since the petitioner's husband was running auction chits and the petitioner was running lodging house in Sirumalai as Vishnu Cottage, the respondent had acquaintence with the petitioner five years prior to the lodging of the complaint, that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet out the family expenses and for developing the Vishnu Cottage at Sirumalai and to clear the sundry debts from the respondent on 25.03.2019 agreeing to repay the said loan amount within one month and issued a cheque bearing No.221241 drawn on Axis Bank Limited, Dindigul Branch, for Rs.10,00,000/- by post-dating the same as 25.04.2019, after filling up and subscribing her signature, that the respondent presented the cheque for collection through his banker Karur Vysya Bank, R.M.Colony Branch, Dindigul, on 25.04.2019, that the cheque was returned on 26.04.2019 for the reason 'Account Closed', that the respondent has then sent a legal notice on 07.05.2019 to the petitioner demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque, that though the petitioner has received the legal notice on 10.05.2019, she has neither sent any reply nor made any payment and that therfore the respondent was constrained to file the above complaint. 5. 5. The case of the petitioner is that all the allegations levelled by the respondent are false and baseless, that the respondent is totally an unknown person to the petitioner, that the respondent is not the friend of her husband, that the petitioner's daughter is doing business at America and her son is a reputed doctor and hence, there is no necessity for the petitioner to receive such amount from him, that the petitioner has never issued any cheque to the respondent nor signed any such cheque, that since the petitioner was suffering from severe back pain and was taking treatment at JCB hospital as outpatient, she could not send reply notice in time and that she sent a reply notice dated 24.05.2019 in response to the legal notice issued by the respondent. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that one Umadevi resident of Vivekananda Nagar is the close friend of the petitioner, that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- from the said Umadevi and gave her 3 sovereigns of diamond necklace, 5 sovereigns of bangles and 2 sovereigns of studs, that the petitioner had repaid the amount on 08.10.2018 itself and asked her jewels, that the said Umadevi refused to return the jewels and in the meanwhile, the said Umadevi came to the petitioner's house and at that time, the petitioner kept her Axis Bank cheque book in her table without signing bearing Nos.221230 to 221250, that the said cheque book was stolen by the said Umadevi and that thereafter, the said Umadevi contacted the petitioner and demanded exorbitant interest. 7. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner approached the said Umadevi with the help of her family members and elders, that the said Umadevi had returned only four cheques bearing Nos.221232, 221233, 221238 and 221245, after repeated requests, but she refused to return the jewels and other cheques, that the petitioner preferred a complaint before the Town North Police Station, Dindigul, and the enquiry is pending before the concerned police, that the said enquiry is pending for 6 to 7 months by giving lame excuses and that the said Umadevi colluded with the respondent and some others and filed the false cases against the petitioner. 8. 8. The main contentions of the petitioner is that the very complaint itself is not maintainable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the respondent is an unknown person to the petitioner, that there is no legally enforceable debt existed between them and that the said Umadevi has also sent three more legal notices through different persons, who are all unknown to the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issuance of the cheque itself is doubtful, that the petitioner has not borrowed any amount from the respondent and therefore prima facie case for the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out, that there is no legally enforceable debt or existing liability and that the cheque in dispute has been misused by the said Umadevi and the respondent by filling up the date and other contents. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner did not fill or sign the cheques, that initially she was not aware of the theft of cheque book committed by the said Umadevi and that therefore the complaint filed by the respondent is liable to be quashed. 11. As already pointed out, the respondent has canvassed a case that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from him on 25.03.2019 and towards repayment of the said loan, she issued the cheque in dispute on the same day by post-dating the same as 25.04.2019. 12. But the petitioner has specifically denied and disputed the case putforth by the respondent and the petitioner canvassed a case that she has never borrowed any amount from the respondent nor issued any cheque in his favour, that the petitioner's cheque book was stolen by her friend Umadevi and that the said Umadevi in collusion with the respondent has initiated the present proceedings. 13. Moreover, it is the specific case of the petitioner that she borrowed only a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- from her friend Umadevi and for that she had handed over some jewels and that though the said loan amount was repaid, the said Umadevi has failed to return the jewels, but on the other hand, the petitioner's cheque book was also stolen and that one of the cheque has been misused by the respondent and the said Umadevi. 14. 14. Whether the cheque in dispute was issued towards repayment of the loan allegedly taken by the petitioner on 25.03.2019 or that the cheque in dispute was allegedly stolen by the petitioner's friend Umadevi is the main aspect of the case on hand and the same can only be gone into at the trial and not at this stage, in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. Even assuming for arguments sake that the case putforth by the respondent is absurd or improbable, even then, since the same touches upon the facts of the case, the same cannot be gone into at this stage, as they are the matters which are required to be established by way of evidence and this Court, exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not be justified to try these factual aspects. 16. It is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs The State Of Maharashtra reported in 2019(18) SCC 191 , after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has specifically held that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule and that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in Section itself. It is also settled law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings. 17. In the case on hand, since there existed serious disputed facts, this Court in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into truth or otherwise of allegations levelled or delve into the disputed question of facts. A perusal of the complaint and other records available, makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 18. A perusal of the complaint and other records available, makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 18. Upon careful perusal of the facts, circumstances and arguments advanced by both the parties, this Court is of the view that all the submissions made by the petitioner's side are directed towards the disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court concludes that the above criminal original petition is absolutely devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Since the case is pending from 2019 onwards, this Court is also of the view that necessary directions are to be given for earlier disposal of the case. 20. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case in C.C.No.488 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.