The Court dismissed the petition to quash proceedings under Sections 420 IPC and 138 NI Act, holding that truth of allegations must be decided at trial and dispensing with personal presence of the petitioner during trial.
Criminal Petition disposed of; proceedings in C.C.No.533 of 2015 remain; petitioner represented by counsel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2506 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.533 of 2015 on the file of the XIV Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, arising out of offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
This Court is of the view that truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner can be decided only after due trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioner.
In any event, as the case is arising out of Negotiable Instruments Act, the question of identity of the petitioner does not arise, and as such, the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates when the trial Court insists for his appearance. The petitioner is directed to be represented by his counsel before the Court below on all hearing dates.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
26.02.2016 pln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 420 IPC and 138 NI Act should be quashed at this stage.
Whether the petitioner requires physical presence in the trial court in a cheque dishonour case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
RAJA ELANGO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
