Yogalakshmi Sukumaran v. G.Seenu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.26159 of 2012 & Crl.M.P. No.10197 of 2016 Yogalakshmi Sukumaran Petitioner vs.

G. Seenu Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records relating to C.C. No.2373 of 2012 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 and to quash the same. For petitioner Mr. C. Prabakaran For respondent Mr. R. Rajasekaran

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to C.C. No.2373 of 2012 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 and to quash the same. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their name.

One Seenu, the respondent herein, launched a prosecution against Yogalakshmi Sukumaran under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C.No.2373 of 2012 and the same is now pending on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, challenging which, Yogalakshmi Sukumaran is before this Court.

Heard Mr. Prabakaran, learned counsel for Yogalakshmi Sukumaran and Mr. Rajasekaran, learned counsel for Seenu. It is the case of Seenu that Yogalakshmi Sukumaran borrowed a sum of Rs.30 lakhs in January 2011 from him and in discharge of the said liability, she had issued two cheques for Rs.10 lakhs each on 07.04.2011, which, when presented by Seenu, were dishonoured on 29.04.2011. Seenu issued a statutory notice dated 18.05.2011 to Yogalakshmi Sukumaran and since the latter did not repay the amount, Seenu launched the prosecution, as aforestated. Mr. Prabakaran, learned counsel for Yogalakshmi Sukumaran submitted that Yogalakshmi Sukumaran does not know Seenu at all and that she had given the cheques to one Ashok Kumar, who, in turn, had handed over the cheques to Seenu, based on which, Seenu has presented the cheques and after the said cheques having been dishonoured, Seenu has launched the aforesaid prosecution. In this regard, Mr. Prabakaran, learned counsel, relied upon the reply notice dated 09.06.2011 that has been issued on behalf of Yogalakshmi

Sukumaran in response to the statutory notice issued by Seenu under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In the considered opinion of this Court, these are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Mr. Prabakaran's further contention is that the number of the cheque in the complaint and the number of the cheque in the statutory notice differs, inasmuch as, in the complaint, the cheque number has been given as 7213117, whereas, in the statutory notice, it has been given as 723117. On a perusal of the cheque in question, it is seen that the number found therein is 723117. Thus, there is a typograpical error in the complaint, which, by itself, cannot vitiate the entire prosecution. In the statutory notice, the complainant has given all the necessary particulars, including the correct number of the cheque and therefore, the argument of Mr. Prabakaran does not have legs to stand.

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Connected Crl.M.P. is closed.

16.11.2016 cad

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

cad To The V Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore Chennai 600 008 The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai 600 104 Crl.O.P. No.26159 of 2012 16.11.2016