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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2889

R.MALA
A. Inbaraj – Appellant
Versus
Dinakaran – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioners: Mr. T.Antony Arul Raj For Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
For Respondent: Mr. S.C. Herold Singh

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioners have come forward with the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.546 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, which was taken on file, pursuant to the case registered in Crime No.550 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, stating that the defacto complainant has given a complaint on 10.07.2007 stating that on 10.07.2006 the petitioners came to his house and obtained signature in six blank cheques and two blank promissory notes under threat and the second petitioner herein has presented one of the cheques for encashment and it was returned as 'insufficient fund' and on 12.01.2007, he issued a statutory notice and after receipt of the summons only, the respondent herein lodged the complaint in question on 10.07.2007. It is further submitted that the second petitioner herein has also filed a private complaint in S.T.C.No.1446 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was ended in conviction before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur, against which, the respondent preferred an appeal in C.A.No.279 of 2008




































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