High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 28.11.2025Coram:The Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVICrl.A.No.1834 of 2025Metal Queen,A Partnership firmRep. by its PartnerMr.S.Manikandan,S/o. K.Shanmugam,No.55, Raji Flats,Devaki Nagar, Off Ring Road,Ponniammanmedu,Chennai – 600 110. ...AppellantVersusMr.Ruishit Bipinbhai Patel,Residing atC/o. PEC Pumps Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.,No.C39, GIDC Estate, Near Fire Station,Odhav, Ahmedabad,Gujarat – 383 415. ...RespondentThis Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita praying to set aside the order passed in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 on the file of the II Fast Track Court Judge at Allikulam, Egmore and restore the case to file to be tried on merits.For Appellant:Mr.S.Thiruvengadam1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Complainant seeking to set aside the Order dated 13.09.2024 in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai and to restore the case in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 to file to be tried on merits.2. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant/Complainant is a partnership firm carrying on the business of metal fabrication and other allied work and during the course of its business, Appellant/Complainant required pneumatic pressure pumps and needle valve. While Mr.S.Manikandan, Partner of the Appellant firm was searching in the website, he saw an advertisement of the Respondent/Accused that Respondent/Accused is carrying on the business and dealing with the items required by the Appellant/Complainant. Therefore, Appellant/Complainant had placed orders with the Respondent/Accused, pursuant to which, Respondent/Accused directed the Appellant/Complainant to send the initial amount of Rs.12,87,500/- to his personal account lying in ICICI Bank, Ahmedabad, Odhav Branch. Believing the false representation of the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Respondent/Accused, Appellant/Complainant sent the initial amount of Rs.12,87,500/- to the bank account of Respondent/Accused.3. After the receipt of said amount, Respondent/Accused avoided the phone calls of Appellant/Complainant. When the Partner of Appellant firm went to the place of Respondent/Accused and enquired about the orders placed by Appellant/Complainant, Respondent/Accused admitted that he did not possess such material as promised by him and he issued the following cheques to Appellant/Complainant:(i) Cheque No.462912 dated 20.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.54,000/-(ii) Cheque No.000102 dated 25.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,58,313/-(iii) Cheque No.000101 dated 16.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,98,000/-(iv) Cheque No.000099 dated 19.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-(v) Cheque No.000100 dated 21.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-4. When the Appellant/Complainant presented the aforesaid 5 cheques for encashment, 3 cheques viz., Cheque No.462912 dated 20.09.2017; Cheque No.000102 dated 25.09.2017 and Cheque No.000101 dated 16.09.2017 were honoured, but, Cheque No.000100 dated 21.09.2017 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was returned dishonoured on 04.12.2017 for the reason, “Funds Insufficient”. So, Appellant/Complainant had issued a Legal Notice dated 14.12.2017 to Respondent/Accused calling upon the Respondent/Accused to pay the cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the said legal notice was received by the Respondent/Accused on 17.12.2017, but, even after the receipt of said legal notice, Respondent/Accused did not come forward to repay the cheque amount. Therefore, Appellant/Complainant had preferred a complaint against the Respondent/Accused for the offence under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai. The said complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.2093 of 2018. 5. When the case in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 was taken up for hearing on 13.09.2024, Appellant/Complainant was absent. Hence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai vide Order dated 13.09.2024 in C.C.No.2093 of 2018, dismissed the complaint of Appellant/Complainant and acquitted the Respondent/Accused. Aggrieved by the same, Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. The learned counsel for Appellant/Complainant submitted that Respondent/Accused is well aware of the case and he is regularly sending messages through SMS to Appellant/Complainant, but, Respondent/Accused is evading the Court summons with the connivance of local Police and hence, Appellant/Complainant had filed a Memo before the Court below praying to issue Non Bailable Warrant to Respondent/Accused.6.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Appellant/Complainant submitted that Appellant/Complainant was regularly appearing before the Court below and he was absent only on 13.09.2024. The non-appearance of Appellant/Complainant on 13.09.2024 is neither willful nor wanton. Without considering the regular appearance of Appellant/Complainant in the previous hearings, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the impugned order. 6.2. The learned counsel for Appellant/Complainant also submitted that Appellant/Complainant has a fair chance of succeeding in the case in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai and also, 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Appellant/Complainant is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the case in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 may be restored on file.7. Heard the learned counsel for Appellant/Complainant and perused the materials available on record.8. In the present case, Appellant/Complainant had placed orders with the Respondent/Accused for purchase of pneumatic pressure pumps and needle valve, pursuant to which, Respondent/Accused had received the initial amount of Rs.12,87,500/- from the Appellant/Complainant. After the receipt of said amount, when the Partner of Appellant firm enquired the Respondent/Accused about the orders placed by the Appellant firm, Respondent/Accused admitted that he did not possess such material as promised by him and he issued 5 cheques to Appellant/Complainant. When the Appellant/Complainant presented the said cheques for encashment, one cheque was returned dishonoured for the reason, “Funds Insufficient”. Therefore, Appellant/Complainant had issued a Legal Notice to 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Respondent/Accused, but, even after the receipt of said legal notice, Respondent/Accused did not repay the cheque amount. Therefore, Appellant/Complainant had preferred a complaint against the Respondent/Accused for the offence under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court below. The said complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.2093 of 2018. When the case in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 was taken up for hearing on 13.09.2024, Appellant/Complainant was absent and thus, the Court below has dismissed the complaint of Appellant/Complainant and acquitted the Respondent/Accused. Hence, Appellant/Complainant has preferred this Criminal Appeal.9. As far as this case is concerned, though the Respondent/Accused was very well aware of the case and he is sending SMS to Appellant/Complainant, Respondent/Accused is evading the Court summons with the connivance of local Police. On the other hand, Appellant/Complainant was regularly appearing before the Court below in the previous hearings. However, the Court below has dismissed the complaint of Appellant/Complainant for his non appearance on 13.09.2024.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10. Considering the fact that the impugned order passed by the Court below is a cryptic order and the Appellant/Complainant is ready to co-operate with the trial proceedings, this Court is inclined to allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the case in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai.11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Order dated 13.09.2024 in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai is set aside. Consequently, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai is directed to restore the case in C.C.No.2093 of 2018 forthwith and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.28.11.2025mrr Index: Yes/NoSpeaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To1.The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.mrrCrl.A.No.1834 of 202528.11.202510/10