AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instituted against her by the respondent herein. 2. The arguments advanced by Mr.J.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.S.Ramajayam, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. The documents produced on either side were also perused. 3. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner herein borrowed a sum of ₹ 2,20,000/- from the respondent herein on 01.03.2007 and issued a post-dated cheque (dated 08.03.2007) for the above said amount; that when the cheque was presented on 08.03.2007 for encashment, the same was returned unpaid citing insufficiency of funds as the reason; that a notice dated 17.03.2007 demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque issued by the respondent herein through his la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7493 pertaining to the account maintained by her in Canara Bank, Dharapuram; that one of the said cheques has been filled up in the name of the respondent herein and the case has been foisted against the petitioner herein. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the amount (₹ 2,00,000/-) borrowed by Raj and his father Ayyavu was agreed to be repaid in 35 installments and that in the said circumstances alone, cheque No.857492 was filled up in the name of the respondent and presented for encashment to be eventually returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds. It is the further contention of the petitioner that though the notice dated 17.03.2007 was received by the petitioner was promptly replied by a reply notice dated 05.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld itself. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the criminal complaint cannot be quashed taking into account the documents produced and relied on by the petitioner/accused. 7. This court paid its anxious considerations to the above said submissions made on either side. 8. Of course it is true that an FIR or complaint can be quashed, if the averments made therein do not make out the offence alleged. It is well settled that the court dealing with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C should not try to appreciate or evaluate the evidence proposed to be adduced in support of the prosecution case and that the criminal proceedings can be quashed, in case the averments found in the complaint or the FIR and the supporting document, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent herein. The said agreement is a registered one. The sale consideration quoted therein is ₹ 2,25,000/-. The agreement recites that, out of the total consideration of ₹ 2,25,000/-, ₹ 2,00,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement itself. However, for payment of the balance amount of consideration (comparatively smaller amount of consideration), namely ₹ 25,000/-, three years time has been stipulated in the said agreement. It is also quite surprising to note an unusual and unnatural commitment made by the said Balakrishnan by agreeing that the entire amount of advance which formed part of the total sale consideration would be forfeited, if he was not able to pay the balance within the time stipulated in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law and his father. If all these aspects are taken into consideration, it will make it clear that the respondent/complainant has not come with clean hands to the court. The above said documents produced by the petitioner/accused are enough to show that the institution of the criminal proceedings for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and abuse of process of court. 11. Of course, this court is aware of the fact that Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 gives rise to a presumption that such cheque was received in discharge of a debt or liability. But such a presumption cannot be further extended to presume that there was such a debt or liability. ....