NARYANAN Vs. M.S.D. DAIRY FIRM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the complaint filed by the respondent against him in S.T.C.No.75 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Srivilliputhur.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent herein filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act r/w. Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner alleging that he is the Proprietor of M.S.D. Dairy Firm and on 18.04.2012, the petitioner said to have approached the respondent for the purpose of purchasing cows. Accordingly, on 26.07.2012, the petitioner had taken possession of 50 cows for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on various dates. When the respondent asked the remaining sale consideration, on 26.07.2012, the petitioner said to have given a post-dated cheque, bearing No.680342, dated 01.09.2012, drawn on Corporation Bank, CPBB Saritavihan Branch, New Delhi, for Rs.7,00,000/- in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent was informed to present the cheque to the Bank and collect the balance sale consideration. Accordingly, as per the instruction of the petitioner, the respondent had presented the said cheque to the Central Bank of India, Rajapalayam, and the same was returned with an endorsement as 'insufficient funds' vide Memo dated 04.09.2012 to the respondent's Bank and the same was informed to the respondent through his Bank on 06.09.2012. In order to follow the procedure established in the Negotiable Instruments Act, on 01.10.2012, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has also received the same on 03.10.2012, but did not reply to the same. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act r/w. Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Srivilliputhur. Against which, the present Criminal Original Petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the alleged cheque was issued by the petitioner in the name of the firm, the respondent implicated the petitioner as accused without implicating the firm as one of the accused in the abovesaid complaint. Aggrieved by the said complaint preferred by the respondent, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Original Petition.