Dismissed

M/S. M. Amit and Sons (Huf) v. M.M.Syed Sikkander

Madras HC14 Oct 2020CRL OP/14981/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition for special leave to prefer an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case was dismissed. The Court referred to a connected case and found no fundamental infirmities to grant leave, holding it not a fit case for appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to prefer appeal was refused; criminal original petition dismissed; criminal appeal rejected at the SR stage.

M/S. M. Amit and Sons (Huf) Vs M.M.Syed Sikkander — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 24.09.2020 DELIVERED ON : 14.10.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P. No.14981 of 2020 in Crl.A.SR.No.23997 of 2020

¶6

M. Amit & Sons (HUF) represented by its Karta Amit M. Rajani S/o B. Manohar Aged about 39 years No.105, New Avadi Road Kilpauk Chennai 600 010 Petitioner vs.

¶7

M.M. Syed Sikkander S/o Mohammed Mohideen Aged about 57 years Proprietor: M/s. Syed Bearing Centre No.16, Begum Sahib III Street Mount Road Chennai 600 002 Respondent

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378(5) Cr.P.C. seeking grant of special leave to prefer appeal from the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.I), Egmore, at Allikulam, Chennai 600 003 in C.C. No.7446 of 2016.

¶9

For petitioner Mr. L. Rajasekar

¶10

ORDER

¶11

For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as the complainant and the accused, respectively.

¶12

2 The complainant in this case is one Amit & Sons (HUF) represented by Amit M.Rajani. Amit M. Rajani initiated a prosecution in C.C. No.7446 of 2016 in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (FTC No.I), Egmore at Allikulam under

¶13

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

¶14

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the accused, in which, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 31.01.2020, has acquitted the accused, aggrieved by which, the complainant has preferred the instant criminal original petition invoking Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave of this Court to prefer an appeal thereagainst.

¶15

3 Heard Mr. L. Rajasekar, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶16

4 Leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal against acquittal is not automatic and it can be granted only when there are prima facie materials to show that the order of acquittal suffers fundamental infirmities.

¶17

5 In a connected case, viz., Crl.O.P.No.14465 of 2020 in Crl.A SR.No.23980 of 2020, this Court has refused grant of leave to appeal sought by Heera A. Rajani, wife of Amit M. Rajani, who also initiated a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the same accused, in which, the trial Court acquitted the accused. It is seen that on a single day, four prosecutions were initiated against the same accused, out of which, two prosecutions were by Amit M. Rajani and his wife Heera A. Rajani in respect of cheques that were given by the accused in the police station to one Sivaneswaran. That apart, the Magistrate has taken pains to calculate the alleged debt amount based on the statement of account (Ex.P.2) and has found that the debt amount can, at the most, be Rs.1,24,000/- and not Rs.1,48,000/- as claimed by the complainant. The reasoning given by this Court in dismissing the leave petition in Crl.O.P.No.14465 of 2020 in Crl.A SR.No.23980 of 2020 filed by Heera A. Rajani, wife of Rajani, will hold good for this petition as well.

¶18

6 In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that this is not a fit case to grant leave to prefer an appeal against the well considered judgment and order of acquittal.

¶19

As a sequel, this criminal original petition stands dismissed and ex consequenti, this criminal appeal stands rejected at the SR stage itself.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

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

¶25

cad

¶26

¶27

1 The Metropolitan Magistrate (Fast Track Court No.I) Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai 600 003

¶28

2 The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai 600 104 Crl.O.P. No.14981 of 2020 in

¶29

Crl.A.SR.No.23997 of 2020

¶30

CP(CO) RMP((27/11/2020)

¶31

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

M/S. M. Amit and Sons (Huf) v. M.M.Syed Sikkander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. M. Amit and Sons (Huf) v. M.M.Syed Sikkander

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

G.Sundaram, 64 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

C.Manoharan Vs the Inspector of Police

Peranandam Vs Protection Officer

Senthildevi Vs Kanagavalli

M.M.Hakim, Aged 46 Years, Vs the Superintendent

C.Ponmalar, F/a 44 Years, Vs Mathaiyan, M/a 49 Years