Venkatesa Ramesh Para v. Pruthvinath Kancherla
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P Nos.18542 & 18546 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12339, 12340, 12344 & 12345 of 2023 Venkatesa Ramesh Para
...Petitioner in both OPs
vs.
Dr.Pruthvinath Kancherla Rep by Power Agent J.Raja
...Respondent
in Crl.O.P.No.18542 of 2023 Prathyusha Kancherla Rep by Power Agent J.Raja
...Respondent
in Crl.O.P.No.18546 of 2023 COMMON PRAYER:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in CC.No.2309 and 2308 of 2021 respectively pending on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8.
For Petitioner in both OPS : Mr.Mandala Narasingsa Rao For Respondent in both OPs : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate for R1 Page No.1/5
COMMON ORDER These criminal original petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.2309 and 2308 of 2021 respectively pending on the file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8.
2. The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The same has been put to challenge in these petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has not taken into consideration the return memo that was filed along with the complaint and according to the petitioner, it does not satisfy Section 2(8) of the Bankers Book's Evidence Act, 1891.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590 and he specifically relied upon paragraph No.23.1 in that judgement. Page No.2/5
5. The sum and substance of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below had mechanically taken cognizance of the complaint even without satisfying itself on the fulfilment of Section 2(8) of the Bankers Book's Evidence Act, 1891. The return memo has not been properly certified as Mandated in the said provision. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by contending that the bank's slip is a prima facie evidence to certain facts and it raises the presumption for the fact of dishounour of cheque based on the official mark that has been made by the Bank.
6. In the considered view of this Court, what is available before this Court is a copy that was furnished to the petitioner along with the complaint. As to whether the concerned bank had properly certified the return memo as Mandated under the Bankers Book's Evidence Act, 1891 is a matter of fact which could not be gone into in these quash petitions. This is an issue which will be considered by the trial Court at the time when the documents are marked.
7. This Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC does Page No.3/5
not go into questions of fact. This Court is of the considered view that the issue that has been taken cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 of CrPC and it is purely a question of fact which requires appreciation of evidence.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merits in these quash petitions. Therefore, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 18.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order nsa To 1.The XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 8
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104..
Page No.4/5
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
nsa Crl.O.P Nos.18542 & 18546 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.12339, 12340, 12344 & 12345 of 2023 18.08.2023 Page No.5/5