Dismissed

S.M.Ramesh v. P.Santhanam

Madras HC3 Apr 2023CRL OP/6331/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail and recall petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court dismissed the application to quash a Section 138 NI Act complaint. The Court held that disputes regarding the principal amount due versus security provided are questions of fact for trial, precluding quashing at this stage. Consequently, connected civil petitions were also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition and connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were dismissed.

S.M.Ramesh Vs P.Santhanam — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No. 6331 of 2021 And

¶7

Crl.M.P.Nos. 4202 & 4203 of 2021

¶8

S.M.Ramesh ... Petitioner/Accused

¶9

¶10

P.Santhanam ...Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings in S.T.C.No. 1 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate / FTC, Vellore and quash the same as against the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sairaman

¶14

For Respondent : Mr. M.r.Dhalapathy Vigneshkumar

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Petition is to quash a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

¶20

2 . It is alleged that the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. Thirty Two

¶21

lakhs in favour of the complainant and the said cheque was presented for collection and that the same was dishonoured.

¶22

3 . The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the respondent had given only Rs. five lakhs and the petitioner is not liable to pay Rs. thirty Two lakhs. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has misused the cheque given as security for the purpose of repayment of loan amount.

¶23

4. This Court finds that the points raised by the petitioner have to be

¶24

adjudicated only before the trial Court. The question as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. Thirty Two lakhs or Rs. five lakhs is a questions of fact which has to be decided before the trial Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the quash petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

¶28

5. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶29

Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

¶30

03.04.2023

¶31

vsg

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

Judicial Magistrate / FTC, Vellore.

¶35

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

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

vsg

Crl.O.P.No. 6331 of 2021 And

¶40

Crl.M.P.Nos. 4202 & 4203 of 2021

¶41

03.04.2023

¶42

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

S.M.Ramesh v. P.Santhanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.M.Ramesh v. P.Santhanam

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

Anbazhagan Vs the State Rep.by

B.Mirthula Vs the Inspector of Police

Rohinikumar Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kural @ Ezhumalai (A5) Vs State Rep by

The Commissioner of Police, Vs Chira Murali Krishna

Muruganandam Vs the State Rep.by