The accused in C.C 1550/90 on the file of VII, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in the said C.C No. 1550/90.
2. The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 read with 142 Negotiable Instruments Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as ‘the Act’). The allegation in it are briefly as follows:
In the course of their business, the accused/petitioner herein had issued a cheque dated 20.12.1989 for Rs. 2,000/- drawn on Karur Vysaya Bank Ltd., Polur. When the cheque was presented for collection through their bankers M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Broadway Branch, Madras, the same was returned dishonoured on 23.12.1989 with an endorsement “please refer to drawer”. Thereupon, the complainant sent notice through lawyer dated 3.1.1990 It was returned by the accused on 6.1.1990 He did not pay the amount within 15 days, of the receipt of the notice. Thus he has committed offence under Section 138 of the Act. Hence the complaint.
3. Mr. K. Salvarangam, the learned counsel for Mr. V. Gopinathan, would submit that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the cheque must have been drawn “for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability” and in the instant case, there is no such allegation in the complaint and so the complaint is liable to be quashed.
4. I have carefully considered the submission made by Mr. K. Selvarangam. The relevant portion of the complaint reads as follows:
“The complainant states that in the course of their business, the accused had issued a cheque S.B No. 795044 dated 20.12.1989 for Rs. 2,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Polur, North Arcot District.”
The relevant clause is “in the course of their business, the accused had issued a cheque”. The requirement for an offence under Section 138 of the Act is the Cheque must be drawn “for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability.” The allegation in the complaint which I have extracted above does not satisfy the requirements, needed for making out an offence under Section 138 of the Act. On this ground, the complaint is liable to be quashed.
5. In view of the above, Crl. M.P No. 4801/90 is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C No. 1550/90 on the file of the VII, Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, shall stand quashed.