Disposed

S.Veerubommu v. M.Jagenmohan

Madras HC1 Aug 2024CRL A/107/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant appealed against acquittal of the accused in a cheque dishonour case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Following a Full Bench decision, the High Court held it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and directed transmission of papers to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

What did the court decide?

Papers transmitted to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai; complainant to appear there on 22.12.2017.

S.Veerubommu Vs M.Jagenmohan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.11.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.A.No.107 of 2015

¶2

S.Veerubommu ... Appellant/Complainant Vs M.Jagenmohan ... Respondent/Accused

¶3

S.Veerubommu

¶4

Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused dated 06.12.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV, George Town, Chennai, in C.C.No.114 of 2002, remit the case of the trial Court by directing the trial Court to give an opportunity to the appellant to prosecute his case.

¶5

For Appellant : Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran JUDGMENT

¶6

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

¶7

2.The complainant has initiated a prosecution in C.C.No.114 of 2002 against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Insturments Act, in which, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.IV,George Town, Chennai, had acquitted the accused on 06.12.2014. Hence, the complainant has filed the present appeal against the order of acquittal before this Court.

¶8

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶9

4.In view of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in S.Ganapathy Vs. N. Senthilvel [(2016) 3 MLJ (Crl) 641 (FB)], this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and therefore, the Registry is directed to transmit all the papers to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after retaining the photo copies of the papers on file.

¶10

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

¶11

The complainant shall appear before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on 22.12.2017 at 10.30 a.m.

¶12

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mps
To
1.The Principal Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2.The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fast Track Court No.IV,
George Town,
Chennai.
3.The Section officer,
criminal section,
high court madras 104.
+1cc to Mr.G.MOORTHI Advocate, S.R.No. 81852/17
Crl.A.No.107 of 2015
KGK(CO)
TR(19/12/2017)

¶13

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

S.Veerubommu v. M.Jagenmohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Veerubommu v. M.Jagenmohan

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

R.Murugan S/O.Ramasamy, Vs M.Vishvanathan, S/O.Murugan

Iswarya Associates Vs Mr.K.B.Shankar

M/S.Sreevari Travels Vs M/S.Shersun Travel and Cargo

S.Muthusamy Vs K.Palanisamy

Selvaraj, 54 Yrs, Vs Sankar, 57 Yrs

Thangamuthu Vs K.Sivakumar