TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 sons Mr.G.Ramachandran [5 cheques totally f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 with endorsement either as "funds were insufficient" or " payment stopped". After issuing statutory notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount, the complaints have been filed. 5. During the course of trial, through additional proof affidavit, reply given by the accused for the statutory notice a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. Hence, he can prove these through his bank statement and need not compel the complainants to produce their bank statement and income tax returns. 11. The orders of the Trial Court dismissing the petitions filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C and Section 91 of Cr.P.C are under challenge on the ground that the accused in a compla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 reply notice. Later, during the trial, included reply notice and a deed of settlement dated 07/09/2019 as additional documents on the side of the complainant and introduced it through additional proof affidavit. 16. No doubt, the complainants had been cross examined extensively on several aspects, but the accused wants to cross exam....