Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Manjulakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Moorthi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of complaint due to lack of signature. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the role in issuing the cheque. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. clarification on prosecution standards under section 138. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. final ruling allowing the petition. (Para 9) |
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the second accused in S.T.C.No.626 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Usilampatti seeking to quash the private complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the cheque which was alleged to have been dishonored arises out of a joint account in the name of the first accused and the second accused, namely, R.Ramesh and R.Manjulakshmi. The second accused, who is the petitioner herein, has not signed the cheque, though it is a joint account. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have not been attracted. Hence, the petitioner has sought to quash the private complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3400 of 2020 dated 22.06.2022 (R.Chamundeswari Vs. M/s.Housing Devel
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
