Dismissed

P.Paramasivam v. Shanmugasundaram

Madras HC17 Oct 2014CRL OP/28317/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Section 138 NI Act proceedings. The court held that issues regarding misleading due to missing cheque number in statutory notice must be decided by the trial court and cannot quash the case.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash C.C. No. 154 of 2014 was dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.Paramasivam Vs Shanmugasundaram — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 17.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.OP No.28317 of 2014 and

¶6

M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

¶7

P.Paramasivam .. Petitioner/Accused
Vs
S.Shanmugasundaram
.. Respondents/Complainant
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in
C.C.No.154 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.2, F.T.C., at Magisterial level, Coimbatore and quash
the same.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Gangadaran ORDER Seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.154 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, F.T.C., Coimbatore, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶9

2.The respondent herein is the complainant in the said case. The said case has been instituted on a private complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶10

3.This petition has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶11

4.The only ground upon which, this petition has been filed is that, in the statutory notice issued, the cheque number was not mentioned. But, it is seen from the reply notice that the petitioner has asked for return of the said cheque because of the failure to mention the cheque number.

¶12

5.The petitioner has been mislead or not, is a matter to be gone into only by the trial Court and hence, the said proceedings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as sought for by the petitioner cannot be quashed. Therefore, the

¶13

Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jbm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, F.T.C., at Magisterial level
Coimbatore.
2.-do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.
Crl.OP No.28317 of 2014
sv(Co)
pmk.3.11.2014

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Paramasivam v. Shanmugasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Paramasivam v. Shanmugasundaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Murugesan, S/O.P.Rasu, Vs the Inspector of Police(Crime)

R.Padmanaban Vs Srimathi Parameswari

Mr.Gallalappa Vs M/S.Ganga Finance

Kadhirvel Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Krishnan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

M.a.Panchatcharam Vs the Inspector of Police