Jaya Mam Case (Task 1)

Facts

The Petitioner/Accused is a Police official and the Respondent/Complainant is carrying

a real estate business, the Respondent had entered in to Sale Agreement with one
Swaminathan for purchase his property which containing some encumbrance, further
allegation that the Petitioner promised to clear the encumbrance, complete the
documentation works using her influence as Head Constable. That as per instruction of
the Petitioner, on 12.08.2021 the Respondent had paid part amount a tune of
Rs.1,00,000/- to Mr.Anthony Raj Account, on 13.08.2021 paid part amount to a sum of
Rs.50,000/- Mr.Selvakumar, on 13.08.2021 paid Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner, on
14.08.2021 19,00,000/- to the Petitioner in hand etc., Thereafter the Petitioner was not
able to complete her task using her influence, hence the Petitioner issued cheque, which
was presented in bank, the same was returned as insufficient fund.

Our Client Stand

A bare reading of the above allegations, as gleaned from the complaint, manifests that
the transaction in pursuance of which the cheque was issued is for illegal purpose. It is
submitted that our Hon’ble Supreme Court and our Hon’ble High Court in well
celebrated judgments held that this Hon’ble Court can quash the STC when factual
ingredients of the offence are not made out.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to state that essential ingredient, especially the word
“Debt or other Liability” employed in Section 138 was explained in “Explanation”
stated that “debt of other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other liability”.
But as per the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint disclosed that the
there is no legally enforceable debt, the cheque was issued for illegal purpose. Hence,
this Petitioner is constrained to file this Quash petition under section 482 of Crpc.
Issues

1. In our country morality will prevail or procedural law will prevail?

2. Whether the discharge application is maintainable in proceedings initiated under

NI Act (138& 142) ?

3. Check Whether this maxim is adopted by madras High Court Courts "pari
delicto portior est conditio defendentis"

4. Whether mere execution of the cheque is sufficient to constitute an offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Act, unless it is proved that the debt or other
liability is a legally enforceable one ?

5. Whether 138 proceedings initiated to recover bribe money or enforce a totally

illegal or immoral contract is valid ?

6. Whether presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, can be raised at the initial stages if
the complainant is himself relying on an illegal consideration ?

7. Whether criminal revision is maintainable against magistrate Cognizance order ?

8. Under what grounds can we prefer quash Application?

Veera Parthiban