JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in STC No.419 of 2018 pending on the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem and quash the complaint. Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in STC No.417 of 2018 pending on the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem and quash the complaint. Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in STC No.418 of 2018 pending on the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem and quash the complaint. Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in STC No.416 of 2018 pending on the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem and quash the complaint.) Common Order 1. These Criminal Original Petitions had been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. Nos.416, 417, 418 and 419 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that notice was issued on 14.05.2012 to the Petitioner. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that before expiry of 45 days from the date of return of cheques the complaint had been filed. Sufficient time had to be given to the Accused to respond to the notice. Therefore, from the date of issue of statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 45 days time is granted to file private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (138 to be read) 3. Sufficient time had to be given to the Accused to respond to the notice. Therefore, from the date of issue of statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 45 days time is granted to file private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (138 to be read) 3. The Respondent had filed complaints in STC Nos.416, 417, 418 and 419 of 2018 for the cheque bearing No.039085, dated 05.02.2012, for the amount of Rs.5,04,870/-; for the cheques bearing No.039079, 039080, 039081 and 039082, dated 28.01.2012, 29.01.2012, 30.01.2012 and 31.01.2012 respectively each for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-; for the cheque bearing No.039070, dated 16.01.2012, for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and for the cheque bearing No.039083, 039084 dated 01.02.2012 and 03.02.2012 each for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, New Delhi – 7 which were dishonoured vide memo dated 24.04.2012 for the reason “Account Blocked”. Therefore, notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued by the Respondent on 14.05.2012. The same was sent to the Petitioner only on 16.05.2012. Thereafter the Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act prematurely before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Cases at Salem, on 31.05.2012. The complaint filed by the Respondent before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Cases is premature. Therefore, the complaints are not maintainable and the same have to be quashed. 4. He further submitted that the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Cases at Salem failed to appreciate the facts in the criminal complaint as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the Income Tax Authorities had blocked the Bank Account of the Petitioner who is facing the trial before the trial Court. The cheques were returned with the endorsement “Account Blocked”. It does not specifically state under whose instructions the account was blocked. When the notice was served on the Petitioner, on behalf of the Complaint, the Petitioner had not replied. Before the reply, the complaints were filed. Therefore, the complaints are the premature complaints and the same have to be quashed. 5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following rulings: 5.1. When the notice was served on the Petitioner, on behalf of the Complaint, the Petitioner had not replied. Before the reply, the complaints were filed. Therefore, the complaints are the premature complaints and the same have to be quashed. 5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following rulings: 5.1. In the case of Vijay Chaudhary -vs- Gyan Chand Jain reported in 2008 (104) DRJ 349 wherein the High Court of Delhi has held as under: “Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 — Payment stopped because of attachment of the bank account by an order of the Court — When the cheque is dishonoured for ostensible reasons different from those specifically provided under the Act, it is necessary to establish that the ostensible reason is one attributable to a voluntary act/omission of the drawer, and that the same is merely a ruse to avoid payment of the cheque — For an account to be maintained by an account holder, it is essential that he is in a position to operate the said account by either depositing monies therein or by withdrawing money therefrom — Once the account has been attached by an order of the Court, the said account could not be operated by honour any of his instructions in relation to the said account — No offence can be said to have been committed — Complaint, quashed.” 5.2. In the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh -vs- Savitri Pandey and another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 812 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Ss. 138 and 142 – Competency of court to take cognizance of offence punishable under S. 138, NI Act, on basis of complaint filed before expiry of 15 days of receipt of notice – In case said issue was answered in negative, next question that would fall for determination would be whether complainant could present complaint again after expiry of 15 days and beyond one month period stipulated under Section 142(b), NI Act – In light of conflict between decisions of Supreme Court and even High Courts, matter referred to three-Judge Bench – Constitution of India, Art. 141.” 5.3. In the case of Kishore Shankar Singapurkar -vs- State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 938 wherein the High Court of Bombay has held as under: “Negotiable Instruments Act, S. 138 — Complaint under section 138 filed by complainant without placing all material facts before court — Order directing cheques to be returned to the drawer — Order not challenged and attained finality — Cheque dishonoured on presentation — In the facts and circumstances prosecution under section 138 quashed — Prosecution of petitioner quashed.” 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the case is of the year 2012. When the case is part-heard stage after examination of the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner herein, who is facing the criminal trial, had been playing dilatory tactics before the trial Court. The Complainant proceeded marking of the evidence and the evidence is completed under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he had only given fake denial. After the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner, who is facing the trial as Accused, had approached this Court seeking quashment which cannot be permitted. 7. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the following rulings:- 7.1.In the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan -vs- The State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in 2022 SAR (Cri) 599, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under: “R – Dishonour of Cheque – Complaint at a pre-trial stage – Relief of quashing – Rightly refused. R – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption and Rebuttal – Legal presumption of issue of cheque in discharge of liability – Can be rebutted only during the trial. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Secs. 138, 139 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 482 – Dishounour of Cheque - Presumption and Rebuttal – Quashing of Complaint – Legal presumption of issue of cheque in discharge of liability, can be rebutted only during the trial – Not judicious for the quashing court to carry out a detailed enquiry into merits of the disputed facts – Relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage rightly refused.” 7.2.In the unreported decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Shree Maruthi Yarns and others -vs- M/s.Sri Ramakrishna Mills (Coimbatore) Limited [Crl.O.P.No.27778 of 2006, dated 05.10.2007] it has been observed as follows: “17. Guided by the principles set out in the above said decision of the Apex Court, this Court has to allow the trial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the matter. In other words, the case before the trial Court, which is in part-heard stage, can, in no way, be quashed and if any order of quashment is passed, it would be classically improper. Hence, it is not proper for this Court, to exercise the power, conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the light of the illuminating judicial pronouncements and in view of the circumstances available in this case, no valid ground is made out to interfere with or disturb the proceedings in C.C.No.104 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sathiamanagalam, and the said case has to come to its logical conclusion.” 7.3.In the unreported decision of this Court in the case of V.Suriya – vs- S.Karthi [Crl.O.P.No.463 of 2017, dated 16.07.2020] it has been held as under: “3. It is seen that the respondent lodged complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and also agreed to repay the borrowed amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum towards repayment of the same. On 18.08.2015, the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- which was presented for collection and the same was dishonoured for the reason “Account Blocked”. After issuing statutory notice to the petitioner, the respondent herein lodged a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.” 7.4.In the unreported decision of this Court in the case of S.Madhu -vs- V.Selvaraj and another [Crl.O.P.No.3509 of 2014, dated 01.08.2014] it has been observed as under: “5.Here is the case, wherein the private complaint was filed on 30.7.2012 stating that the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid by way of cash to the accused and the cheque bearing No.114866 dated 5.6.2012 drawn on ICICI bank issued by the accused for the same, assuring that the same will be honoured on presentation. When it was presented for collection on 5.6.2012, it was returned dishonoured for the reason of Account Blocked situation through return memo dated 7.6.2012 etc. Whereas, the complaint regarding missing of cheques was given only on 19.12.2013. When it was presented for collection on 5.6.2012, it was returned dishonoured for the reason of Account Blocked situation through return memo dated 7.6.2012 etc. Whereas, the complaint regarding missing of cheques was given only on 19.12.2013. Had it been true, the petitioner would have thought it fit to give complaint during 2011 itself. Though the date of occurrence was between 2011 and March 2012, the complaint was given on 19.12.2013 much after the issuance of statutory notice. That being so, this court is not inclined to accept the theory as put forth before this court, to quash the proceedings. In my considered view, the same is available by way of defence to the accused to be agitated before the trial court and the truthfulness or otherwise of such theory cannot be gone into by this court in this quash petition, which is summary in nature.” 8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent furnished copy of the Criminal Original Petitions filed by the Respondent as well as the Petitioner herein regarding the similar private complaints filed by the Respondent in which the Criminal Original Petition filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed. The Criminal Original Petition filed by the Respondent was allowed directing the trial Court to dispose of the case within a reasonable period and also directing the trial Court to cancel the bond executed by the Accused. 9. On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the reported rulings and also unreported decisions of this High Court placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, it is found that the Petitioner herein had appeared before the trial Court and the Trial Court had proceeded till the stage of 313 Cr.P.C., and at that stage, these Petitions had been filed. When the trial had commenced, it is the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 that the High Courts shall not exercise the discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings and only it can be exercised such discretion before commencing of the trial and also in the reported decision of the Honble Supreme Court placed reliance by the learned Counsel for the Respondent in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan -vs- The State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in 2022 SAR (Cri) 599. 10. 10. Further, on perusal of the typed set furnished by the Petitioner herein/the Accused before the trial Court, it is found that he had not replied to the statutory notice issued by the Respondent. If the accounts of the Petitioner had been blocked by the Income Tax Authorities, he ought to have informed the Respondent/Complainant regarding the blocking of the account by the Income Tax Authorities. Therefore, the cheques need not be presented. In the alternative, after issuance of the cheques by the Petitioner herein when the accounts of the Petitioner were blocked by the Income Tax Authorities, the Petitioner herein as Accused before the Trial Court ought to have informed the Respondent/Complainant to return the cheques as the accounts had been blocked. If after issuance of the cheques and the account had been blocked, the Respondent/Complainant having issued statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Petitioner herein ought to have replied to him that the cheques in question were unable to be processed by the Bank due to accounts have been blocked. Therefore, the Petitioner herein/Accused before the trial Court is not liable for the dishonor of the cheques. If that warning had been given by way of reply by the Petitioner herein, the Respondent would not have filed the Criminal Complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner herein remained silent after receipt of statutory notice from the Respondent/Complainant. Under those circumstances, the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner will not help the case of the Petitioner since after the case reached the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing these Criminal Original Petitions which is found to be against the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the reported decision in State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. Therefore, these Criminal Original Petitions are liable to be dismissed. In the result, all the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem is directed to proceed with the trial in STC Nos.416, 417, 418 and 419 of 2018 and dispose of the cases within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.