SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

M.THANIKACHALAM
C. N. Harikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Kinetic Finance Limited. – Respondent


Order

M. Thanikachalam, J. —The accused in C.C.No.4530 of 2002 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, has filed this petition, to quash the proceedings against him, alleging that there was no proper and valid notice, before initiating criminal proceedings, that on the date mentioned in the notice, no cheque was issued by him and therefore, he was not in a position to honour the demand, that the notice said to have been issued, before the prosecution, is not signed by the counsel. On these grounds, according to the petitioner, the further proceedings in the criminal case are unwarranted and therefore, he should be relieved from facing the unnecessary ordeal of the trial.

2. The respondent herein as complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner, arraying him as an accused, for appropriate punishment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the case of the prosecution, that the accused/petitioner, in Order to repay the amount borrowed, along with interest, in equal monthly instalments, issued 12 cheques and one of which is the cheque dated 15.12.2001 for a sum of Rs.2,000 that when this cheque was tendered for collection












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top