Mrs.Rayan Sylvia Jaya @ v. T.A.X.Bose @ T.A.X.D.Bose

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.11.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P. No.23628 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.11127 and 11128 of 2016 Rayan Sylvia Jaya @ Syliva Jaya John Kenndy Petitioner/Sole Accused vs.

T.A.X.Bose @ T.A.X.D.Bose Respondent/Complaianant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.446 of 2016 on the file of the Hon'ble FTC-II, Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam at Chennai and quash the same as illegal forthwith.

For petitioner Mr.S.Palani Velayutham

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.446 of 2016 on the file of the FTC-II, Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam at Chennai and quash the same as illegal forthwith.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent are referred to as accused and complainant respectively.

4. It is the case of the complainant that the accused is a close relative and that her husband had borrowed Rs.10 lakhs on 06.06.2014, in discharge of which liability, the accused herein had issued the impugned cheque dated 29.05.2015, which when presented by the complainant was dishonoured. The complainant issued statutory notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thereafter, has filed the present prosecution in C.C.No.446 of 2016, challenging which the accused is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the loan amount has already been repaid to the complainant, but the complainant had misused the cheque given to him. In the considered opinion of this Court, disputed questions of fact, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. In the result, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the accused submitted that, the petitioner is a lecturer in Mumbai and her presence before the trial Court may be dispensed with.

8. Accepting the said submission, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such surrender, she shall be released on bail on the same day u/s 436 Cr.P.C. on she furnishing a bond for Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] with two local sureties for a like sum and thereafter, her presence before the trial Court shall be dispensed with on condition that she shall be present for receiving the charge sheet, for answering the charge, at the time of questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing judgment.

She shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the Trial Court that she will not dispute her identity and that the counsel named by her in the affidavit will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on the day they are examined-in-chief, as held by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 288]. If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to insist upon her presence and remand her to custody as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shambhu Nath Singh [JT 2001 (4) SC 319]. If thereafter the petitioner absconds, the trial Court shall direct registration of an FIR against her u/s 229-A IPC.

1. Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Allikulam at Chennai

2. -do-Thro The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+ 1 cc to Mr.S. Palani Velayutham, Advocate SR.622572 Crl.O.P. No.23628 of 2016 GJ(CO) EU 25.11.16 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/