B.RAJENDRAN
Maruthi Processors, a registered firm by Partner R. Palanisamy, Komarapalayam, Namakkal District – Appellant
Versus
R. Subramaniam – Respondent
1. All the three Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the petitioners/accused, aggrieved by the common order dated 7.6.2012 passed by the Court below, by which the petitions filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act were allowed.
2. The petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. S.T.C. No. 110 of 2012 was filed by R. Subramaniam, respondent in Crl. R.C. No. 654 of 2012 for dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. S.T.C. No. 94 of 2012 was filed by R. Karuppanasamy, respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 655 of 2012 for dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/-. S.T.C. No. 120 of 2012 was filed by K. Kumarasamy, respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 657 of 2012 for dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3. Pending the aforesaid S.T.C. Nos. 110, 94 and 120 of 2012 respectively, the respondent/complainant herein have filed Petitions under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act in (i) Crl. M.P. No. 1811 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 110 of 2012 (ii) Crl. M.P. No. 2057 of 2012 in S.T.C. No. 94 of 2012 and (iii) Crl. M.P. No. 1886 of 2012 in S.T.C
Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 2 MLJ 1 (SC) [Para 16]
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India AIR 2011 SC 1436 [Paras 9
State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram AIR 1979 SC 14 [Para 14]
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808 [Para 18]
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram babu Mishra AIR 1980 SC 791 [Para 19]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.