2024 (6) TMI 699

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Nos.6652, 6656, 6660,6663, 6666, 6670, 6701, 6702, 6703, 6706, 6708, 6713, 6717, 6718, 6719, 6722, 6726, 6731, 6734 and 6735 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN For the Petitioner : Mr. D. Shivakumaran for M/s Mayilnathan in Crl.O.P.No.25391 of 2023 For Respondent :Mr.G.Hari Hara Arun Soma Sankar Crl.O.P.No.25391 of 2023 ORDER These three batches of Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, arise from the orders passed by the Trial Court dismissing petitions filed by the accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C, Section 311 Cr.P.C and Section 254(2) Cr.P.C respectively. 2. Twenty private complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner/Munirathinam either in his individual capacity or/and as Managing Partner of M/s Everest Blue Metals have been taken cognizance by the Fast Track Court-II, Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore. The complainants are either Mr.M.Gajendran [8 cheques totally for Rs.9,05,00,000/-, (Rupees Nine Crores and Five Lakhs only)] or his family members, such as, his wife Mrs.G.Rajam [2 cheques totally for Rs.5,57,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores and Fifty Seven Lakhs only)] and 3 so....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ran 009618, Canara Bank, Bommidi, dated 03.10.2019 10,00,000 15 622/20 R.Munirathinam G.Ramachandran 938772, State Bank of India, Kadathur Branch, dated 03.10.2019 7,00,000 16 9234/19 R.Munirathinam M.G.Vasantha Kumar 698502,  Indian Bank, Sillarahalli Branch, dated 09.09.2019 3,80,00,000 17 617/20 R.Munirathinam M.G.Vasantha Kumar 938774, State Bank of India, Kadathur Branch, dated 03.10.2019 5,00,000 18 618/20 R.Munirathinam M.G.Vasantha Kumar 009619, Canara Bank, Bommidi dated 03.10.2019 10,00,000 19 9241/19 R.Munirathinam M.G.Suresh Kumar 572727,  Indian Bank, Kadathur Branch, dated 09.09.2019 4,30,00,000 20 628/20 R.Munirathinam M.G.Suresh Kumar 938775, State Bank of India, Kadathur Branch, dated 03.10.2019 5,00,000 4. The averment in the complaints are almost similar or identical. The tenor of the complaint is that the accused R.Munirathinam borrowed loan on different dates between August 2018 and June 2019 to meet out his business commitments. To discharge the loan, he gave the subject cheques. On presentation for collection, the same got returned wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....em. 9. In both the batch of petitions, the complainants filed counter stating that, they were cross examined extensively by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. The petitions to recall are filed at the fag end of the trial to harass them without assigning any reason for recalling. For the petitions filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C, the complainants in their counter had contended that, the accused admits partial liability (Rupees Five Crores and Ninety Lakhs only). Therefore, cannot seek for the complainants source of advancing the loan. Further, due to default of the accused, they were not able to file the income tax returns and unable to file their bank statements. 10. The trial Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C stating that, in the petition to recall PW-1 no specific reason stated why the witness need to be recalled. The accused can establish his defence through his witnesses and documents. Recalling the complainant is not necessary. The Trail Court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. stating that, the accused admits his signature in the cheques and also admits the receipt of Rs.5,90,00,000/- through bank transaction. Hen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ness to be recalled. Regarding the income tax returns and bank statements of the complainants, the Trial Court has rightly observed that, the facts sought to be proved can be done through examining the accused side evidence and it is not necessary to summon the complainant to produce documents. 14. Heard both sides. Records perused. 15. The complaints 20 in numbers against the petitioners are in respect cheques issued for a total sum of Rs.30,04,00,000/-. The complainants are all members of one family. They all admit in the cross examination that they are all income tax assesses for several years. They also claim that money was lend either by cash or through bank transaction. The complaints does not disclose when and how much paid through bank transfer and when and how much paid by cash. Mere admission that the accused borrowed Rs.5,90,00,000/- may not be sufficient to sustain a cheque dishonour complaint for Rs.30 crores. It is relevant to note that the accused had sent a detailed reply to the statutory notice narrating, how the liability arose, how much money received and the mode of payment. The complainant had first conveniently omitted to disclose the receipt of the repl....