Madan Lal Narula v Ashok Tex - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2022 TaxPub(CL) 2927 (Mad-HC)

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881

Section 138

Drawer filed petition for quashing of proceedings on the ground that complaint filed by the cheque holder was premature, but the drawer had approached Court, when the case reached at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C. was not exercised by this Court, the petition was dismissed.

Dishonour of cheque - Petition for quashing of proceedings on basis of premature complaint - Drawer approached Court after case reached at stage of 313 Cr.P.C. - Whether Court can exercise discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Cheque holder filed a complaint under section 138, wherein Trial court initiated the proceedings. Drawer filed a petition on the ground that the complaint filed by the cheque holder was premature. Further, Income Tax Authorities had blocked his bank account, therefore, the payment was not made. Held: As per guidelines of Supreme Court, High Courts shall not exercise discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, such discretion can be exercised only before commencing of the trial. It was found that the drawer had not replied to the statutory notice issued by the cheque holder regarding blocking of his bank account by the income tax authority. Further, the drawer had approached the Court, when the case reached at the stage of 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C. was not exercised by this Court. Thus, the petition was dismissed.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : against the petitioner

A.Y. :

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

Madan Lal Narula v. Ashok Tex

Crl. O.P. Nos. 19273, 20821, 20841, 20989 of 2021, Crl. M.P. Nos. 11317, 11319, 10567, 11380, 11383, 11331 & 11332 of 2021

2 September, 2022

Petitioner by: D.M. Bhalla for Athiban Vijay A.K.

Respondents by: R. Nalliyappan

ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions had been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. Nos. 416, 417, 418 & 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 14-5-2012 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. The Respondent had filed complaints in STC Nos. 416, 417, 418 & 419 of 2018 for the cheque bearing No. 039085, dated 5-2-2012, for the amount of Rs. 5,04,870; for the cheques bearing No. 039079, 039080, 039081 and 039082, dated 28-1-2012, 29-1-2012, 30-1-2012 and 31-1-2012 respectively each for the amount of Rs. 10,00,000; for the cheque bearing No. 039070, dated 16-1-2012, for the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 and for the cheque bearing No. 039083, 039084 dated 1-2-2012 and 3-2-2012 each for the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 drawn on ICICI Bank, New Delhi-7 which were dishonoured vide memo dated 24-4-2012 for the reason 'Account Blocked'. Therefore, notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued by the Respondent on 14-5-2012. The same was sent to the Petitioner only on 16-5-2012. 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 31-5-2012. 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.