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

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6474

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
P.MUTHUKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
M.MICHEAL – Respondent


ORDER

When the case is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Ambattur submitted that the Petitioner had filed this petition seeking to quash the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant. He further submitted that notice was taken to the Respondent/Complainant. The name of the Respondent/Complainant is also printed in the cause-list, but no counsel had appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant. 2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the Page No.1 of the typed set of papers filed along with this Petition regarding the notice issued by the Petitioner. He caused the notice on the Respondent/Complainant, the Respondent/Complainant issued a reply and based on the reply, it has been converted into the criminal complaint. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the contents of the reply notice is not as per the provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which insists upon a statutory notice. The reply notice given by the Respondent/Complainant was not caused on the Petitioner herein. It was caused on

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