Dismissed

P.Suganya v. a.Seethalakshmi

Madras HC12 Aug 2025CRL OP/22289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court rejected the submission that the cheque was issued only to take revenge, noting the complaint stated a legitimate debt for past transactions. Quashing was dismissed as the issue required detailed evidence appraisal at the trial stage.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

P.Suganya Vs a.Seethalakshmi — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP No. 22289 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 22289 of 2025

P.Suganya

Petitioner(s)

A.Seethalakshmi

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS To call for the records pertaining to the complaint in STC No.7271/2023, on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III at Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr. G.Shiv Asurya

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

¶17

initiated against the petitioner in STC No.7271 of 2023 for the alleged offence

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No. 22289 of 2025

¶21

punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶22

It is the contention of the petitioner that the complainant herself has

¶23

admitted in the complaint that cheque in question had been issued only with an intention to take revenge for dragging the accused to the police station. It is therefore contended that there is no legally enforceable debt and hence, the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is not maintainable.

¶24

The learned counsel further invited the attention of this Court to

¶25

paragraph 7 of the complaint to substantiate the above contention that no liability existed against the petitioner.

¶26

On a careful perusal of the entire complaint, this Court is unable to

¶27

accept the submission of the petitioner. The allegation that the cheque was issued only to take revenge is not correct. On the contrary, the complainant has specifically pleaded that the conduct of the accused, in attempting to project such an allegation, is only to mislead and avoid liability.

¶28

It is also to be noted that in paragraph 6 of the complaint, the

¶29

complainant has clearly stated that the cheque has been issued in respect of past

¶30

transactions between the parties. In order to give a full quit, the subject cheque

¶31

2/5

¶32

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

¶33

CRL OP No. 22289 of 2025

¶34

has been issued for a sum of Rs.5,15,000/-. At this stage, this Court cannot

¶35

enter into a detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudicate the matter. Therefore, quashing of the proceedings does not arise at all. It is for the petitioner to establish her submissions by letting in evidence before the Trial Court.

¶36

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶37

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

12-08-2025

¶39

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No mrp

¶40

¶41

The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet,Chennai.

¶42

3/5

¶43

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

¶44

CRL OP No. 22289 of 2025

¶45

4/5

¶46

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

¶47

CRL OP No. 22289 of 2025

¶48

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

¶49

mrp

¶50

CRL OP No. 22289 of 2025

¶51

12-08-2025

¶52

5/5

¶53

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

P.Suganya v. a.Seethalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Suganya v. a.Seethalakshmi

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

N.Revathi Muthulakshmi Vs P.Nagaraj

I.P.Yesudoss Vs the State Represented by

Dr.D.Jayakumar Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Revathy Vs The secretary

Kalpana Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Mohankumar Vs The Director General of police