LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-8

KARTHIK V R THONDAIMAN Vs. R M KARTHIKEYAN

Decided On September 04, 2018
Karthik V R Thondaiman Appellant
V/S
R M Karthikeyan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This quash petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.c.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal having been taken cognizance for the offences under Section138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner/Accused.

(2.) The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner is known to him. The petitioner and his mother borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the respondent's wife on 004.2004 on execution of registered mortgage deed of their properties. Again, for the urgent need of the petitioner herein, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-on 005.2007 and at the time of borrowal of the loan, the petitioner issued post dated cheque bearing No.0544530 dated 16.05.2007 drawn on State Bank of India, Trichirappalli for the said sum. When the cheque was presented for collection on 21.05.2007 through the State Bank of India, Kodaikanal, it was dishonoured and returned on 06.06.2007 for the reason "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, the respondent issued statutory notice dated 13.06.2007 and the same was duly received by the petitioner on 16.06.2007. The petitioner also replied by the reply notice dated 26.06.2006 and after receipt of the same, the respondent also issued rejoinder dated 29.06.2007 to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner did not pay the cheque amount and hence, the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal had taken cognizance for the offences under Section 138 of Negotioable Instrument Act against the petitioner and it is pending for trial.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that according to the case of the respondent, the petitioner and his mother borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- on 02.04.2004 on execution of a mortgage deed. Thereafter, without repaying the same, on 02.05.2007, again, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Therefore, when the first loan itself is pending, the further loan as alleged by the respondent herein it not at all possible and it is unbelievable.