1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD).No.787 of 2011 M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 A.Franklin Desai ... Petitioner vs. Subramanian ... Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the order, dated 23.08.2011 made in C.C.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai. For petitioner : Mr.S.Manikandan For respondent : Mr.K.R.Laxman ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Challenging the order, dated 23.08.2011 made in C.C.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai, this revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 3. Based on the complaint given by the respondent herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the case was taken on file against the revision petitioner / accused. As per the impugned order, the Court below has directed the revision petitioner / accused to deposit 10% of the cheque amount pending trial. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without any basis, the Court below has directed the petitioner / accused to deposit 10% of the cheque amount. It is seen that the cheque amount is Rs.14,61,000/-. 5. Mr.S.Manikandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cheque was not dishonoured due to insufficient funds, but only on the instruction given by the petitioner herein. After receipt of notice from the respondent, the petitioner herein sent a reply notice stating that the cheque relates to some other transaction and on the instruction to stop payment, the bank did not honour the cheque and there are triable issues in the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. Per contra, Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has legal right to maintain the case pending before the Court below, however, admittedly the interim order directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the cheque amount was not passed by the Court below on the request of the respondent / complainant. It is seen that the order has been passed 'suo moto' by the Court below, without any legal basis to deposit 10% of the cheque amount. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the respondent requested this Court to fix an early date to dispose the case pending before the Court below. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, I find it just and reasonable to allow this revision. 7. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside and the Court below is directed to dispose the case in C.C.No.70 of 2011 pending on the file of the said Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, solely on merits, uninfluenced by the findings of this Court, if any passed in this revision. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Judicial Magistrate No.I Sivagangai. +One cc to Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan, Advocate, SR.No.39547 +One Cc to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate, SR.No.39572 tsvn rl/4 c- 1.12.2011 Crl.RC(MD).No.787 of 2011 14-11-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/