Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17140 = 2022(2) L.A.R. 431
Decided on: 22.07.2022
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. P. Shankar, Adv.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 – Cheque bounce case – Security deposit cheque – Quashing of Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – High Court quashed the complaint -- Dispute between the parties regarding the quality of the material supplied – Respondent/ accused made a complaint in writing of the defective material and then stopped the payment – Respondent has already filed a Civil Suit for damages – Held, the issues between the parties can be effectively resolved through Civil Suit only – Petitioner shall be at liberty either to file counter claim or a separate suit in accordance with law – Observations made by the High Court in its impugned order shall have no bearing on the outcome of the Civil Suit.
(Para 1-7)
ORDER
1. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, vide its impugned order dated 23.11.2020 quashed the Complaint(s) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the Petitioner-Complainant.
2. The categorical finding by the High Court is that the cheque in question was given as a security deposit and not for discharging any debt liability.
3. Another dispute between the parties is regarding the quality of the material supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent. The Respondent made a complaint in writing of the defective material and then stopped the payment.
4. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the issues between the parties can be effectively resolved through Civil Suit only.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the Respondent has already filed a Civil Suit for damages.
6. If that is so, the petitioner shall be at liberty either to file counter claim or a separate suit in accordance with law.
7. It is further clarified that the observations made by the High Court in its impugned order shall have no bearing on the outcome of the Civil Suit.
8. With these directions, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********