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
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.