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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 3730

M.SATHYANARAYANAN
Adaikalam – Appellant
Versus
K. Raju – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Manokaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B. Vijayakumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

1 The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 21 of 2007 pending On the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi and he is facing the prosecution for the alleged commission of the offences under Section 420, 467 , 468 and 401 of IPC. This criminal original petition is filed for quashment of the said proceedings.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition for quashment are as follows:

Originally, the respondent herein filed a case in C.C. No. 105 of 2002 on the file of the above said Court to prosecute the petitioner herein for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant by executing a demand promissory note and on the demand made by the complainant, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 22.6.2002 drawn on State Bank of Minisal Branch towards part loan amount. The complainant presented the said cheque dated 22.6.2002 before the ICICI Bank, Kodumudi Branch and the same was returned with an endorsement “ insufficient funds ” . The complainant issued a s













































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