CRL OP/29982/2026 of M/s T.Srinivas Managing Partner Proprietor Vs M/s Chettinad Cement Corporation Private Ltd on 29 October 2026

ORDER

This Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC No.181 of 2026 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

2. The petitioner is an accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act alleging that the respondent/complainant is a manufacturer and distributor of cements. In order to discharge partial liability of the supplies, the accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.58,73,900/- to the respondent and when the cheque was presented for collection it was returned by the bank on the ground of material alteration made in the cheque. Hence, the respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in STC No.181 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused submits that the cheque was not even presented to the accused bank for collection and the complainant bank itself returned the cheque. Hence, the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Bank is not at all attracted. On the above said ground he prayed to allow this petition.

CRL OP No. 29982 of 2026

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner/ accused received goods to the tune of Rs.58,73,900/- and thereafter failed to make the payment. Therefore, there was a due of Rs. 58,73,900/. Even though it was returned by the Banker, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act would attract.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. On a perusal of records reveals that the complaint memo contains the endorsement of the drawees bank stating that “As per CTS (Cheque Truncation System) alteration other than date is not allowed”. On going through the memo filed along with the cheque it was seen that there was an alteration in respect of the letters in the amount and presented for collection. Therefore, it was not presented to the accused bank for collection. Further, it would be relevant to go extract the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency , etc., of funds in the account- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either case of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an arrangement made with that bank, such person shall be deems to have committed an offence and shall,

CRL OP No. 29982 of 2026

without prejudice to any other provisions of this act, be punished with imprisonment of a term which may be extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within thee period of its validity whichever is earlier, (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque( within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice

7. Thus, it clear that the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, is attracted only when the statutory requirements prescribed therein are satisfied. In the present case, admittedly the cheque was not received by the complainant’s bank and was not returned unpaid by the bank for any reason. Therefore, the offence under Section 138 is not at all attracted and there is no cause of action for the Trial Court to take cognizance. In order to attract the offence under Section138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the cheque must be presented for payment and returned unpaid by the bank, subject to other statutory conditions. Such return may be on account of insufficiency of funds or in appropriate circumstances when a direction was issued by the account holder to stop payment. However, in the present case, the cheque was neither returned for

CRL OP No. 29982 of 2026

insufficiency of funds nor dishonoured for any other reason by the complainant’s bank. Hence, on this sole ground the entire proceedings initiated as against the petitioner cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the proceedings in STC No.181 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District is hereby quashed and this petition is allowed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SMN To.

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District

CRL OP No. 29982 of 2026

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. SMN CRL OP No. 29982 of 2026 14-10-2026