IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08 .07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.22106 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 R. Kayarohanam .. Petitioner Versus S.Shanmugam .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.3281 of 2007 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s. S.Parthasarathy For Respondent : M/s. V.Kannadasan (No appearance) O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached the respondent/complainant and informed him that 41 grounds of land belonging to Tamil Nadu Housing Board is for sale. The respondent/complainant agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs.30.12 crores. During the negotiation, the respondent/ complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1.20 crores as commission to the petitioner. As a part payment towards this commission, Rs.25 lakhs was paid to the petitioner on 11.03.2006. 2. The petitioner's counsel further submits that the said negotiations regarding land purchase failed. Hence, the petitioner is liable to return the said part of the commission received from the respondent/complainant, for which the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on 15.05.2006, drawn on ICICI Bank, Chennai- 4. The said cheque was presented on 26.05.2006, in the complainant's bankers, namely, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai-10. The said cheque was dishonoured and returned. Subsequently, the respondent/ complainant presented the said cheque, a second time, on 15.11.2006. The same was again dishonoured and returned with the endorsement 'Insufficient funds'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Now, the petitioner's counsel has challenged that the cheque dated 15.05.2006 was presented a second time on 15.11.2006, ie., after a lapse of six months ie., 180 days. Hence, the cheque dishonour case is invalid. Hence, the petitioner's counsel has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.3281 of 2007 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. 4. The respondent/complainant submits that he has filed the C.C.No.3281 of 2007 against the petitioner/accused herein, for an alleged offence under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the respondent submitted that the petitioner issued cheque bearing No.451754 dated 15.05.2006 for the amount of Rs.25 lakhs, drawn on ICICI Bank, Chennai, R.H.Road Branch, Chennai. The said cheque was presented by the complainant twice on 26.05.2006 and 15.11.2006 respectively. Further, the complainant in support of his case, has filed six documents and mentioned three witnesses. The complainant, in support of his case, has observed all legal formalities before approaching the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after considering the ingredients of the complaint and connected documents, has taken the case on his file, and issued summons to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited three cases, in (1) (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 633 (Umarani ..vs.. Velan) , of High Court of Madras. (2) 1999 (3) Crimes 252 (Arunbhai Nilkanthrai Nanavati ..vs.. Jayaben Prahladbhai) of Gujarat High Court. (3) 1998 Crl. Law Journal page 4330 (K.V.Muhammed Kunhi ..vs.. P.Janardhanan) in support of his case. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a cheque, which has been issued six months earlier ie., on 15.05.2006 has been represented a second time on 15.11.2006. The petitioner's counsel has alleged that because of the above said reason, the case cannot be filed on the basis of cheque. Hence, the petitioner is seeking for a quash of the proceedings. 6. Considering the contentions of both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that the said case is at a trial stage and adjudication is necessary to decide the case on merits. Hence, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the said proceedings in C.C.No.3281 of 2007, on the file of the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.22106 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1. The VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. -do- Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate, SR.29677. Crl.O.P.No.22106 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 BVN(CO) RVL 22.07.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/