PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2017 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Karur and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan For Respondent :
:COMMON ORDER For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the complainants and the accused.
2. The complainants in all these cases are Firms carrying on business in Auto Finance and the accused had borrowed monies to the tune of Rs.1 Crore (Rupees One Crore only), for which, the accused had also mortgaged his property. Towards the discharge of the liability, the accused had issued cheques to the complainants, which, when presented by the complainants, were dishonoured on the ground that the drawer signature differs. The complainants issued the necessary statutory notice and thereafter, they launched 38 prosecutions against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, challenging which, these 38 quash applications have been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused.
4. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the cheques were issued only as security and that the accused had already mortgaged his properties with the complainants and, therefore, the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be maintained. He also submitted that the cheques were dishonoured not on the ground of insufficiency of funds, but, on the ground of signature differs.
5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused.
6. As regards the first contention, the same cannot be considered in a quash application, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.Krishnamoorthy Vs. Chellammal reported in AIR 2015 SC 3182, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a quash application and it is for the Trial Court to decide whether the cheques were issued only as security or towards the discharge of the liability.
7. As regards the second contention, this Court is of the view that for signing differently in 38 cheques, the accused may be liable for forgery, in view of Explanation-1 to Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:
"A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery."
8. It is strange as to how the accused could sign differently in 38 cheques and give it to the complainants. Whether there was money in the account of the accused at the time of issuance of the cheques is also a question of fact which has to be decided only by the Trial Court.
9. In the result, these quash applications are misconceived and devoid of merits and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Karur..