Dismissed

Kavitha v. Prakash

Madras HC14 Feb 2024CRL OP/8250/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the criminal original petition filed to quash an STR pursuant to Section 138 NI Act and Sections 420/34 IPC. It held that disputes regarding chit transactions and potential false implication should be worked out before the trial court, rendering the petition devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

Kavitha Vs Prakash — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.8250 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.8250 of 2022

¶7

and Crl.M.P.Nos.4813 & 4815 of 2022

Kavitha

... Petitioner

Vs.

Prakash ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to STR No.1128 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal and to quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan For Respondent : No appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the STR No.1128 of

¶16

2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal having been taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.8250 of 2022

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. According to the petitioner, the respondent has given a false complaint without any base stating that the cheque and the pronote issued by him for security purpose has been misused by the petitioner for filing a false complaint.

¶20

On seeing the facts that, on 12.08.2018 FIR was lodged against the petitioner and her husband in Crime No.171 of 2018 under Sections 420 read with 34 of IPC, stating that the petitioner and her husband were running an unregistered chit and collected lakhs of amounts but failed to repay the amount to the subscribers. On the other hand the petitioner now contends that he was falsely implicated in this case. If at all any chit transaction exists between the parties, they are directed to work out their remedy before the trial Court.

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.8250 of 2022

¶23

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as devoid

¶24

of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

14.02.2024

¶26

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes/No rri

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.8250 of 2022

¶29

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶30

rri

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.8250 of 2022

¶32

and Crl.M.P.Nos.4813 & 4815 of 2022

¶33

14.02.2024

¶34

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

Kavitha v. Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavitha v. Prakash

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

Murugan Vs State Rep.by

Mohan Santhosh Durai Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Periyasamy Vs Kasi Ammal

Ravanan Vs State Rep.by

K. Natarajan, Vs Paulraj, S/O. Devana Gounder

J.Jayaraj Vs Union of India Rep by