Disposed

S.Mahadevan v. K.Shanmugam

Madras HC23 Jun 2021CRL OP/7808/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This batch-wise order addresses a Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of a cheque bounce case. The High Court held that factual grounds require evidence appreciation and refused to quash proceedings. The court dispensed with the accused's presence for this hearing, directing him to appear only for Section 313 CrPC and final judgment.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of without interference; proceedings below to continue. Petitioner presence dispensed with for this hearing but required for Section 313 CrPC and final judgm

S.Mahadevan Vs K.Shanmugam — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P No. 7808 of 2016 and Crl.M.P No. 4067 of 2016 S. Mahadevan ...Petitioner/Accused Vs. K. Shanmugam ...Respondent/Complainant

¶6

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the STC. No.425 of 2014 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Ambattur and quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajesh Kanna For Respondent : Notice (Not Ready)

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.425 of 2014 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Ambattur, Chennai.

¶10

The respondent/complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner/accused for an alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') 1881.

¶11

The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused had approached the complainant to lend money for the accused political upliftment and as if the accused is having 50 crores worth property seeking liquid cash from him. Believing on his words, the complainant given a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to him and he assured to repay the same immediately. It is the further case of the respondent/complainant that towards the discharge of the amount due to his client, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing Nos.996687, 996688, 996689 and 996690, dated 07.03.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each drawn on State Bank of India, HVF Avadi Branch, Chennai, to the respondent/complainant. When the cheque was presented for an encashment/realization by the complainant through his bankers viz., Indian Overseas Bank, Nolambur Branch, Chennai and the same was returned for the reason “insufficient funds” on 04.04.2014. Therefore, the respondent/complainant issued a statutory notice to the petitioner/accused on 10.04.2014, following the same, the petitioner/accused failed to reply for the same till date.

¶12

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

¶13

The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner are all factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Court and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, they are examined in Chief. The petitioner shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the final judgement.

¶15

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of and the Court below is directed to complete the proceedings in S.T.C.No.425 of 2014, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

msm

¶21

¶22

The Fast Track Court,

¶23

Magisterial Level, Ambattur, Chennai.

¶24

CRL.O.P No. 7808 of 2016

¶25

and Crl.M.P No. 4067 of 2016

¶26

PL(CO)

¶27

B.VC(23.07.2021)

¶28

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

S.Mahadevan v. K.Shanmugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mahadevan v. K.Shanmugam

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

Raja @ Periyasamy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Appadurai Vs G.Joy Cartlin

N.M.Shivan, Aged 62 Years Vs State by

Akbar, Aged 35 Years Vs State Rep. by

Senthilkumar, Aged 38 Years Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Sarammal Vs the Inspector of Police