Dismissed

S.Manigandan v. E.S.Anbazhagan

Madras HC2 Dec 2024CRL RC/1967/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the challenge against the Judicial Magistrate?s dismissal of a complaint regarding alleged misuse of cheques, holding that admitted facts showed the cheques were issued to the respondents, not the petitioner, removing any jurisdictional infirmity in the lower court.ifies that remedies lie against the wrongdollar-third party.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision challenging the dismissal of the complaint is dismissed.

S.Manigandan Vs E.S.Anbazhagan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1967 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 2/12/2024

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1967 of 2024

¶7

S. Manigandan . .. Petitioner Vs 1. E.S.Anbazhagan 2. A. Kavitha . .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 (1) of the Code

¶9

of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 21/2/2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.6039 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee.

¶10

For petitioner . .. Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy For respondents . .. Mr.A.Gouthaman

¶11

- - - - - O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Revision Case challenges the dismissal of the

¶13

petitioner's application filed under Sections 200 and 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondents herein.

¶14

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

¶15

Page No:1/4

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.1967 of 2024

¶17

The sum and substance of the allegation in the complaint is that one Rajagopal was due to pay a sum of Rs.9,67,000/- to the petitioner and towards discharge of his liability, he had issued two cheques and the said cheques were misused by the first accused, who was employed under the petitioner and made it appear that cheques were issued in his favour and presented the same and hence, the first accused is liable for the offence under Sections 403, 407, 408, 420 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The learned Magistrate, on perusal of the complaint and other evidences on record and on hearing the respondents found that the respondents also had transactions with Rajagopal and Rajagopal had admitted in his reply to the statutory notice sent by the respondents that he

¶19

had issued the cheques to the respondents and therefore, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶20

This Court, on perusal of the impugned order finds that the learned Magistrate has considered the question as to whether the cheques said to have been issued by the said Rajagopal have been misused by the respondents. On facts, the learned Magistrate found that Rajagopal himself https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:2/4

¶21

Crl.R.C.No.1967 of 2024

¶22

had admitted in his reply to the statutory notice that cheques were in fact issued to the respondents. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the cheques were issued in favour of the petitioner and misused by the respondents. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any non-payment of his dues by the said Rajagopal, it is needless to say that it is open to him to pursue the remedy available in law against Rajagopal. Hence, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶24

2/12/2024

¶25

mvs.

¶26

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

¶27

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Poonamallee.

¶28

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

¶29

Page No:3/4

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.1967 of 2024

¶31

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶32

mvs.

¶33

Crl.R.C.No.1967 of 2024

¶34

2/12/2024

¶35

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

¶36

Page No:4/4

S.Manigandan v. E.S.Anbazhagan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Manigandan v. E.S.Anbazhagan

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

Sathish Vs the State Rep. by

Sathish Kumar Vs the State Represented by

Girinesh Vs State Rep.by

Sanjai@Sanjaikumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Naveenkumar Vs Inspector of Police

R.Elendevan Chandran Jeyabala Vs Minor Prince Pugal Maran (10)