Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
K. Pruthvinath – Appellant
Versus
Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in Crl.O.P. Nos. 2946 & 2948 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.32 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-Inspector, S10, Pallikaranai Police Station for offence under Sections 408 and 420 of I.P.C.)
Common Order
1.These two Criminal Original Petitions are filed separately by two accused namely Dr.K.Pruthvinath (in Crl.O.P.No.2946 of 2019) & Dr.Badrikrishnaswami (in Crl.O.P.No.2948 of 2019), to quash the F.I.R No.32 of 2019, on the file of 1st respondent police.
2. The gist of the F.I.R registered pursuant to the complaint given by one Dinesh Kumar Mishra, General Manager, Finance and Accounts Department of M/s.Ravindranath GE Medical Associations Private Limited against Dr.Badrikrishnaswami (the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2948 of 2019), Dr.K.Pruthvinath, (the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2946 of 2019) and M/s.Paceman Finance India Limited is that, the defacto complainant company is having its registered Office at Perumbakkam, Chennai. On 07.09.2018, the company recovered a legal notice from M/s.Paceman Finance India Limited (hereinafter referred as “M/s.Paceman”) and on perusing t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prima facie evidence to proceed with allegations under Sections 408 and 420 of the I.P.C., and the lack of credibility in unsupp....
Dishonoring postdated cheques does not automatically constitute a criminal offense under IPC sections 406 or 420, without evidence of fraudulent intention at issuance.
The absence of specific allegations of dishonest intent at the time of cheque issuance negates the establishment of an offense under S.420, IPC.
The court affirmed that allegations of misappropriation and cheating warranted further investigation, emphasizing the High Court's limited role in assessing cognizable offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a former director of a company cannot be held liable for a dishonoured cheque issued after their resignation from the directorship, and the im....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
