Dismissed

B.S.Hari v. N.Murugan

Madras HC20 Jun 2023CRL OP/2094/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal original petition seeking to quash a private complaint for Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Bench held the petition is not maintainable as factual disputes regarding misuse of the cheque require adjudication by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the private complaint was dismissed; consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

B.S.Hari Vs N.Murugan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl OP No. 2094 / 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Criminal Original Petition No. 2094 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

Crl.M.P. No. 1161 of 2021

¶9

B.S. Hari ... Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

N. Murugan ... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records relating to the C.C. No. 243 of 2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Edappadi and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. M.N. Balakrishnan.

¶14

For Respondent : Mr. R. Jayaprakash.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petition is to quash the private complaint in C.C. No. 243 of

¶17

2020 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,

¶18

Edappadi for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

1/4

¶21

Crl OP No. 2094 / 2021

¶22

Instruments Act.

¶23

2.The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶24

the petitioner is not known to the complainant and the complainant misused the cheque cannot be adjudicated in this petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court.

¶25

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a professor and prayed for dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with unless the learned Magistrate considers his presence necessary for the progress of the trial.

¶26

With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is

¶27

dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.

¶28

20.06.2023 ay

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/4

¶31

Crl OP No. 2094 / 2021

¶32

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶33

¶34

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Edappadi.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/4

¶37

Crl OP No. 2094 / 2021

¶38

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶39

¶40

Crl.O.P. No.2094 of 2021 and Crl.M.P. No. 1161 of 2021

¶41

Dated: 20.06.2023

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

4/4

B.S.Hari v. N.Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.S.Hari v. N.Murugan

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

Sathishkumar Vs the State Rep.by

M/S.Corrobond Chemicals Vs M/S.Sree Vani Fluoride Rep by Its

Subashini Vs State Rep.by

S.Jaisankar Vs v.Chokkalingam

A.Mohan Kumar Vs N.Murugan

Amudhan Venkatesh Vs State Rep by