TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sentence and conviction awarded by the trial Court. Challenging the legality of the same, the accused has filed this revision petition. 2. The case of the respondent/complainant that it is a registered partnership Firm and it is carrying on business in Handlooms. The revision petitioner/accused is the Proprietor of Southern Mills and she had business dealings from the year 1994 with the respondent Firm and as per the books of accounts maintained by the respondent/complainant, a sum of Rs. 12,33,114.55/- is due and payable. Towards discharge of part of the said dues, the revision petitioner/accused had issued cheques dated 09.04.1995, 13.04.1995, 17.04.1995, 18.04.1995, 21.04.1995, 24.04.1995, 27.04.1995 and 30.04.1995 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. The respondent/private complainant had presented all eight cheques for collection on 15.05.1995 with its bank, namely, Central Bank of India, Karur Branch and all the cheques were returned and when the respondent/complainant asked about the non-honouring of cheques, she told that she is not having enough funds to honour the cheques and sought a time of six months and taking into consideration of the longstanding business relations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the period of limitation. (iii) Originally a case in C.C.No.617 of 1996 was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Karur and as per the order passed by this Court, it was transferred to the file of Judicial Magistrate, Trichy and renumbered as C.C.No.539 of 1996 and summons were issued to the revision petitioner/accused for appearance on 12.07.1996 and she also appeared on that date and on that date, she was kidnapped and kept in illegal custody for three days and during that time only, she was forced to alter the year of the cheques from 1995 to 1996 and she was also forced to sign in blank papers and in this regard she has also lodged a complaint. Based on which, Karur Town Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.964 of 1996 and subsequently it was closed as 'Mistake of Fact' and no proper investigation in that case was conducted and the revision petitioner/accused was also not put on notice with regard to the filing of the referred charge sheet and therefore, the closure of the said case would not come to the aid of the revision petitioner/complainant. All the documents relating to the closure of the said case have been filed by the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh a lawyer under Ex.P16 and in the reply, it has been stated that the revision petitioner/accused has issued post dated cheques for business transactions and there was an earlier notice on 02.02.1996 and immediately receipt of the said notice, a detail reply has been sent on 13.02.1996 stating among other things that the amounts due and payable mentioned in the said notice have also been paid by way of cash and demand draft and in spite of payment, the respondent/complainant did not return the cheques and by using the same, filed the false complaint. 11. It is further stated in the said reply notice that in pursuant to the summons issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Karur, in C.C.No.617 of 1996, the revision petitioner/accused appeared on 12.07.1996 and after attending the hearing, she was kidnapped and was kept in illegal custody and forced to put signatures in the cheques as well as corrections have also been made in the cheques and using the same, the present complaint came to be lodged. 12. On behalf of the respondent/complainant one of the partner was examined as P.W.1. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that when the revision petitioner/accus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion was referred as 'Mistake of fact' and she was not at all put on notice by the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. 18. But the fact remains that subsequently the revision petitioner/accused became aware of the closure of the case and she did not take any steps either to file a protest petition or to lodge a private complaint. Therefore, the closure of the case on the part of the jurisdictional police with regard to the allegation of kidnapping and altering the cheques in question as well as getting signatures in blank papers as well as stamp papers, became final. 19. A perusal of the reply notice, marked as Ex.P16 would also disclose that the revision petitioner/accused has also pleaded discharge and it is her further allegation that in spite of discharge, the respondent/private complainant did not return back the cheques, which have been given as security. But it is also to be pointed out that she did not take any immediate steps to get back the return of cheques in question. 20. It is the specific case of the respondent/complainant that when the cheques were presented on earlier occasion and get dis-honoured and immediately they contacted the revision petitioner/accuse....