Disposed

S.P.Kandasamy v. M.Eswaramoorthi

Madras HC16 Oct 2025CRL A/1005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant appealed against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act case where the trial court had dismissed the complaint for failure to condone a four-day delay. Pending appeal, the accused paid the full cheque amount by demand draft, which the complainant acknowledged; the court confirmed the acquittal and disposed of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of respondents/accused confirmed; criminal appeal disposed of after payment of cheque amount.

S.P.Kandasamy Vs M.Eswaramoorthi — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.A.No.1005 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.A.No.1005 of 2022

¶7

S.P.Kandasamy ... Appellant/complainant Versus 1.M.Easwaramoorthi 2.D.Gandhimathi ... Respondents/A1 & A2

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order of acquittal dated 16.11.2010 made in S.T.C.No.151 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode.

¶9

For Appellant : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed

¶11

J U D G M E N T

¶12

The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act') against the respondents in S.T.C.No.151 of 2007. The trial Court, by a judgment dated 16.11.2010

¶13

dismissed the complaint, acquitted the respondents, against which, the present appeal has been filed.

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the

¶15

trial Court acquitted the respondents merely on the ground that the

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.A.No.1005 of 2022 complainant failed to file a petition to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the complaint. The trial Court failed to look into the fact that after ratifying the delay, complaint taken on file, full-fledged trial conducted, dismissed the complaint on technical grounds. He further submitted that now the respondents/accused had come forward to settle the issue, paid the cheque amount of Rs.1,30,000/- by way of Demand Draft and the same was received by the appellant/complainant. He has also produced the copy of Demand

¶19

Draft, which is extracted hereunder:

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.A.No.1005 of 2022

¶23

3.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material, it is seen that the respondents, who are the accused in a case filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act., had discharged their liability to the appellant/complainant by way of Demand Draft and the learned counsel for the appellant acknowledged the receipt of entire cheque amount.

¶24

4.Recording the same, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of and the

¶25

acquittal of the respondents/accused by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.

¶26

16.10.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral citation : Yes / No Internet : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order rsi To The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode

¶27

3/4

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.A.No.1005 of 2022 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶30

rsi

¶31

Crl.A.No.1005 of 2022

¶32

16.10.2025

¶33

4/4

¶34

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

S.P.Kandasamy v. M.Eswaramoorthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.Kandasamy v. M.Eswaramoorthi

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

Aparna Vasanthakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Kajal Banerjee Vs State Rep.by, the Inspector of Police

Kabilan Gandhi, Vs Tr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Ips.

M.Raja Vs State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

G. Parthasarathi Vs The Joint Director and Head of Zone

R.Kaalammal Vs State rep by the Inspector of Police