Dismissed

Mr.P.Vijayakumar v. Mr.D.Ganesan

Madras HC13 Jul 2016CRL OP/10038/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Complement Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings for cheque dishonour was dismissed as the issues raised were disputed questions of fact unsuitable for summary adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in STC.No.2066 of 2015 was denied; pettition dismissed.

What the court decided

Mr.P.Vijayakumar Vs Mr.D.Ganesan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.07.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL.OP.No.10038 of 2016 and CRL.MP.Nos.5337, 5338 of 2016 P.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner/Accused Vs D.Ganesan ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in connection with in STC.No.2066 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur and quash the same.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.Thiagarajan for Mr.E.C.Murali For Respondent : Mr.V.Kannadasan O R D E R

¶7

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC.No.2066 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvottiyur.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶9

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as complainant and accused. It is the case of the complainant that he is running a business in the name and style of M/s.Renuka Enterprises and that the accused has issued post dated cheque for Rs.1,80,00,000/- dated 18.07.2014, which when presented, was returned as 'funds insufficient'. The complainant issued a statutory notice dated 11.08.2014 for which, the accused sent a reply dated 14.08.2014, but did not make the payment as demanded vide statutory notice. Therefore, the complainant has preferred the present complaint in STC.No.2066 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act. Challenging which, the accused is before this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused has not issued the impugned cheque at all, inasmuch as way back on 08.03.2012, the accused has given a letter to the Manager, Indian Bank, where he is an account holder, stating that the cheque leaf bearing No.914360 has been misplaced. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the entire prosecution stands vitiated.

¶11

In the considered opinion of this Court, this fact cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as they are disputed questions of fact.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused would further submit that the accused has lodged a complaint dated 24.08.2012 to the Commissioner of Police alleging that the complainant is unnecessarily harassing him.

¶13

That apart, on the complaint lodged by the complainant, a case in Crime No.2561 of 2012 has been registered against the accused, which is pending investigation. On all these grounds, the entire prosecution cannot be quashed as they are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Krishnamurthy Vs Chellammal [2015] 4 Scale 371.

¶14

In the result, the petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed, with liberty to the accused to raise all the points before the trial Court. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶15

Assistant Registrar(J)

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar gya

¶18

¶19

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur.

¶20

2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur.(For Information)

¶21

+1cc to Mr.E.C.Murali, Advocate, S.R.No.39588

¶22

+1cc to Mr.V.Kannadasan, Advocate, S.R.No.39586

¶23

CRL.OP.No.10038 of 2016

¶24

CTK(CO)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CA(27/07/2016)

Mr.P.Vijayakumar v. Mr.D.Ganesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Mr.P.Vijayakumar v. Mr.D.Ganesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anandharaj Vs the Station House Officer

N.Chellappa Vs the Commissioner of Police

Guru @ Kumaraguru Vs State by

A.Prathap Kumar, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

R.Arun Kumar Vs J.Yuhama @ Raja Meenakshi

Parimelazhagan Vs the Inspector of Police