9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cents and with building thereon in Old Survey No.84/1C, New Survey No.84/1C2B1 of Madavilagam Village, Poonthamalli Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The Respondent/Complainant was inducted as a tenant in the property and he was running Hotel Business under the name of 'Sri Lakshmi Vilas'. As he suffered losses in the business, he had agreed to returned possession of the premises with Interiors, furniture, utensils and other items. The Petitioners/Accused took possession of the premises after entering into a Memorandum of Understanding and undertaking deed dated 26.02.2020, whereby they agreed to pay a sum of Rs.88,00,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant towards full quit of advance amount and cost of Interiors, furniture, utensils and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the delay to mobilize the funds and promising to pay the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- within three months. 2.2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners mobilized funds by raising loans from their friends and relatives and took a Demand Draft bearing No.671981 dated 16.1.2020 for Rs.25,00,000/- in the name of the Respondent/Defacto Complainant and sent it to him along with a letter dated 16.11.2020 with a request to return the dishonored cheque No.088357 dated 17.08.2020. The amount was realized by the Respondent. In the mean while, inspite of their promise to settle the amount, the Respondent/Defacto Complainant filed a Complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate - II, Chidambaram for the offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot giving consent for compounding. Therefore, it is not for Respondent/Complainant has to withdraw the Complaint since cheque for the value of Rs.25,00,000/- was dishonoured. This Respondent had no other alternative than approach this Court. When the Accused settles the matter, it is for the Complainant to withdraw the case based on the agreement arrived between them. In this case, the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2018) 1 SCC 560 in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta and (2014) 13 SCC 779 in the case of Lafarge Aggregates and Concrete India Private Limited Vs. Sukarsh Azad and another. 3.1. The Petitioner is to be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se for the following reasons, the payment of the amount to the Respondent/Complainant during the period of lockdown throughout India which can be taken Judicial notice by the Court. Invariably, all the people of the country were facing financial trouble. Even at this stage, the Petitioners herein had primarily paid the cheque amount. The Petitioners had on notice to the Respondent/Complainant requested him not to present the cheque immediately as funds were not available. Instead, the Respondent presented the cheque intentionally that the cheque will be dishonoured. After dishonour of the cheque, the Respondent had issued statutory notice to the Complainant. At that time, the Accused sought time to arrange funds and accordingly he had arran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused with an ulterior motive. After cheque was dishonoured as "insufficient funds", issued statutory notice. At that time also the Petitioners requested time to settle the matter. Accordingly, he had arranged the funds and settled Rs.25,00,000/- for which cheque was returned as "insufficient funds". At that time, he requested not to proceed with the Complaint. Still the Respondent proceeded with the Complaint. On appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate on the first date of hearing, the Accused had furnished all relevant documents regarding proof of the statement of the entire claim. Still, as of right, the Respondent/Complainant insisting further amount from the Accused for compounding offence, as per the reported rulings is fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant is rejected. 4.5. Considering the request of the Petitioner to the Complainant while furnishing the cheque to prove the bona fide, it is clearly stated that two cheques had been honoured but three cheques were requested not to be presented till arrangement of funds. Still the Respondent was hasty in presenting the cheque not heeding to the request of the Petitioner. Under those circumstances, the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent cannot be blindly, mechanically applied to the facts of the case. Therefore, the same is rejected considering the extraordinary circumstances available in favour of the helpless accused. In the result, this Criminal O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
