M.Suganthi v. R.Srinivasan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.04.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.8700 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5064 & 5065 of 2022 M.Suganthi ... Petitioner Vs.

R.Srinivasan ... Respondent PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to call for the records pertaining to the impugned private complaint in S.T.C.No.2899 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II, Allikulam and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sankar

O R D E R

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned private complaint in S.T.C.No.2899 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II, Allikulam and quash the same.

2. The respondent has filed private complaint in S.T.C.No.2899 of 2021 against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in respect of dishonour of cheque bearing no.456644 dated 27.08.2021 drawn on Citibank, N.A., Chennai for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner's husband was doing real estate business. During the year 2014, the respondent approached the petitioner's husband for buying land. For such land transactions, the petitioner had handed over certain cheque to her husband for security purpose. The de-facto complainant had illegally removed the cheque and by misusing the same, had filed a false complaint. He would further submit that there is no legally enforceable debt on the part of the petitioner and she is not liable to pay any amounts to the complainant. Thereby, he seeks to quash the complaint in

S.T.C.No.2899 of 2021.

4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

5. This Court is of the opinion that the grounds raised by the petitioner are factual in nature and it cannot be decided at the outset in a quash petition and the grounds raised are matter for trial and the quash petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would pray that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, may be dispensed with.

7. Accepting the said submission, the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that she shall be present on the date fixed for questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment and whenever insisted upon by the Trial Court for the purpose of identification.

8. The petitioner is further directed to give an undertaking in the form of affidavit that she will be duly represented by a counsel on all hearing dates and that the Counsel representing her will cross examine the prosecution witnesses on the same day they are examined in chief. The petitioner shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. The petitioner shall appear before the Court in the event her presence is insisted by the trial Judge for the purpose of identification. If the petitioner adopts any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist for his appearance and deal with the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition in Crl.M.P.No.5064 of 2022 stands closed and Crl.M.P.No.5065 of 2022 stands ordered.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

ham To.

1. The Judge, Fast Track Court-II,(Magistrate level) Allikulam, Chennai.

Crl.O.P.No.8700 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.5064 & 5065 of 2022 KV(CO) CT 17/05/2022