K.Kumar v. P.Padmavathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-12-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP. 29851 of 2024 in CRL A.SR.NO.50350 of 2024 K.KUMAR S/O.KUPPAIYAN, NO.80 PERUMAL KOVIL STREET, KALPEDU POST, ERIKUKPPAM VILLAGE, UTHIKOTTAI THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT - 601 103.
PETITIONER(S) Vs P.PADMAVATHY W/O.PARASURAMAN, NO.1/117, PERUMAL KOVIL STREET, THIRUNILAI, PONNERI TALUK, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT - 601 103.
RESPONDENT(S) For Petitioner(s):
M.MADHU PRAKASH M.JAYAKUMAR K.YUVARAJ V.MRUDULA S.EDHIN FRANK AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FILED For Respondent(s):
Page No.1 of 5
N. MANOHARAN-MS/821/1995 R.RENUKADEVI-MS/3190/2013 M.ADHI SHREE M.GANESH COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., to grant Special Leave to file Appeal as against the Judgement and Order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thiruvallur in S.T.C.No.7 of 2020.
ORDER
Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner/appellant/complainant has filed the present petition seeking leave to file an appeal.
2(a). Mr.Madhu Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, would submit that by the impugned Judgment dated 21.09.2022, the trial Court had acquitted the respondent/accused on the sole ground that though the petitioner had proved the lease deposit amount of Page No.2 of 5
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only), he had claimed Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs only), which is in excess of the due amount and therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be made out.
(b). The learned counsel also submitted that originally the petitioner/appellant was working under the respondent/accused and entered into a lease agreement with the respondent and paid a lease amount of Rs.30,00,000/-; that though the petitioner had entered into a lease and paid an advance of Rs.30,00,000/-, the respondent decided to cancel the lease and give it to one Mr.Praveen Chowdary and had agreed to return the advance amount and the impugned cheque was issued for that purpose.
3. Mr. N.Manoharan, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused, per contra, submitted that the petitioner had no source of income and in the cross-examination, he admitted that he was employed under the respondent and earning a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), and therefore, the trial Court was right in holding that the cheque was Page No.3 of 5
not issued for a legally enforceable debt.
4. The issues raised in the above appeal require consideration by this Court. Hence, leave is granted to file an appeal.
5. Registry is directed to number the appeal and post for admission if it is otherwise in order.
13-12-2024 dk To
1. P.PADMAVATHY W/O.PARASURAMAN, NO.1/117, PERUMAL KOVIL STREET, THIRUNILAI, PONNERI TALUK, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT - 601 103.
SUNDER MOHAN., J.
Page No.4 of 5
dk CRL OP. 29851 of 2024 in CRL A.SR.NO.50350 of 2024 13.12.2024 Page No.5 of 5