Dismissed

P.Senthilkumar v. M.P.Murugavel

Madras HC22 Nov 2018CRL OP/27104/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for cheque dishonour. The Court held that the plea that the cheque was taken by force and misused is a valid defence to be decided on merits by the trial court and is not sufficient grounds for quashing at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction to trial court to complete proceedings within three months; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.Senthilkumar Vs M.P.Murugavel — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.27104 of 2018

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos.15652 and 15656 of 2018

¶8

P.Senthilkumar : Petitioner / Accused

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records to complaint in S.T.C.No.119 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellore District and quash the same.

¶10

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.119 of 2017, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.

¶11

2.The petitioner is an accused in a complaint given by the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cheque belonging to the petitioner has been taken by force and has been misused and complaint has already been given by the petitioner against the respondent and the same has been registered as an FIR by the Vengamedu Police Station, Karur District in Crime No.366 of 2017.

¶13

4.The issue that has been raised by the petitioner can be an effective defence before the court below in the 138 proceedings. It cannot be ground to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to raise the defence before the Court below and the Court below shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. This Court does not want to interfere with the proceedings at this stage.

¶14

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

¶15

5.There shall be a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Crl.M.P.Nos.15652 and 15656 of 2018 are closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶18

//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsg1/gsp
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam,
Vellore District.
2. Do – Through The Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Vellore
3. The Inspector, Vengamedu Police Station,
Karur District.
+1cc to Mr.E.Vinoth Kumar, Advocate SR.No.79801
Crl.O.P.No.27104 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15652 and 15656 of 2018
KK(CO)
GMY(14/12/2018)

¶19

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

P.Senthilkumar v. M.P.Murugavel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Senthilkumar v. M.P.Murugavel

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

Anandan Duraisamy, Vs Nithya Periyasamy

R.Mathialagan Vs a.S.Ramasamy

M.S.Ashokan, Aged 53 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

John Surgen Vs the State Rep by Its

Neela Vs State by Its

V.Palraj Vs the Superintendent of Police