Madras High CourtCRL OP/30630/2013dismissed with direction

E.Sugumar v. M/S.Arujun Amaravathi

2020-01-29Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.01.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.No.30630 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.No.1120 of 2018 E.Sugumar ... Petitioner Vs.

M/s.Arujun Amaravathi Chits (P) Ltd., Reg. Office at No.30, Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

Rep. by its Executive Assistant, T.Damodaran ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in C.C.No.3740 of 2013 on the file learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Saidapet, Chennai, and to quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ravidevan For Respondent : Notice served-No Appearance *******

ORDER

The respondent filed a private complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the NI Act') against the petitioner before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Saidapet, Chennai. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint in C.C.No.3740 of 2013 and issued summons on the petitioner/accused. After receipt of summons, the accused approached this Court seeking to quash the above calender case invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the very same cheque, which is in dispute in the present complaint, the respondent has initiated arbitration proceedings, wherein an award was also came to be passed, against which the petitioner filed an appeal, which is now pending. Hence for the very same set of offence, the petitioner should not be prosecuted twice. Therefore the present case is liable to be dismissed.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

None appeared for respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

It is the contention of the petitioner that for the very same disputed cheque, the respondent has filed criminal complaint and also initiated arbitration proceedings. But, on a careful perusal of the order passed in the arbitration proceedings, it reveal that arbitration has been initiated by the respondent only for the remaining amount to be settled by the petitioner and the present complaint is filed for dishonor of the cheque issued by the petitioner towards part settlement of the due. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is not acceptable. This Court does not find any reason to invoke power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the case. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

However, the petitioner/accused is at liberty to raise all his defence before the trial Court. Further, since the case in C.C.No.3740 of 2013 is pending from the year 2013, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the above calender case in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a report on the same before this Court.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) // True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cgi To The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, (Fast Track Court), Saidapet, Chennai.

Crl.O.P.No.30630 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.No.1120 of 2018 MP(CO) CSR: 05.03.2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/