IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 06.03.2008 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. Nos.30316 and 30317 of 2004 and Crl.M.P. No.9534 to 9537 of 2004 Ramesh ... Petitioner in both Petitions. Vs. Dr.C.Kanchana ... Respondent in rep. by the Power Agent both Petitions. S.Amarnath. Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records of the proceedings in C.C. Nos.9013 and 9014 of 2003 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For respondent : Mr.S.Arunkumar COMMON ORDER In both these Criminal Original Petitions, parties are the same. The respondent herein presented private complaints against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same were taken on file by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C. Nos.9013 and 9014 of 2003, and the petitioner seeks to quash those proceedings pending against him before the learned Magistrate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph No.6 of the complaints and submits that though it is stated therein that statutory notices dated 03.10.2002 and 19.08.2002 had been issued and the same were received by the accused, in contrary thereto, the next line proceeds to the effect that 'the accused has wilfully and wantonly not claimed the notice and also failed to pay the cheque amount'. According to him, contrary statement has been made in the complaints and therefore, receipt of the notice itself is doubtful. Further, by stating that the complainant has not furnished correct address while preferring private complaint, learned counsel seeks to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quash the proceedings. 3. I have carefully perused the materials available on record having regard to the contention projected. In both the cases, the list of documents shows that the legal notices were issued on 03.10.2002 and 19.08.2002 and the acknowledgement cards therefor are dated 04.10.2002 and 20.08.2002 respectively. Though the learned counsel argued before this Court for quashing of the complaints on the sole basis of the contradiction pointed out by him at paragraph No.6 of the complaints, such aspect may have to be agitated before the trial court, which would consider the same in the light of the facts involved and materials available. This court cannot, on such flimsy reasons, quash the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. Both the petitions fail and they are dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. The petitioner is at liberty to canvass the point raised here before the trial court. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. JI. To 1. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8. 2. -do- through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Crl.O.P. Nos.30316 and 30317 of 2004. sr[co] gp/26.3. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/