Madras High Court: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., allowed a criminal original petition and quashed the proceedings in a criminal case filed against the petitioner. Instant petition was filed to quash the proceedings pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate having been taken cognizance for the offences under Section 420 of Penal Code, 1860.

Skip to content
SCC Blog
Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

Search …
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
LINKEDIN
YOUTUBE
NAVIGATION
HomeCase Briefs[Malafide Litigation] Madras Hc | Proceedings Under S. 420 Ipc Quashed For Being Counterblast To Complaint Instituted Under S. 138 Ni Act
[Malafide Litigation] Madras HC | Proceedings under S. 420 IPC quashed for being counterblast to complaint instituted under S. 138 NI Act
CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
Published on October 29, 2020By Devika
Leave a comment

Madras High Court: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., allowed a criminal original petition and quashed the proceedings in a criminal case filed against the petitioner.

Instant petition was filed to quash the proceedings pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate having been taken cognizance for the offences under Section 420 of Penal Code, 1860.

Respondent lodged a private complaint alleging that the complainant was running a proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s RSR Egg Centre along with poultry farms at Namakkal District.

Respondent approached the petitioners for the supply of animal feeds and the same was agreed and animal feeds were supplied to the respondent. In the normal course of business transaction between the petitioners and the respondent, for the purpose of holding out security as against the feeds supplied by the petitioners, the respondent issued two cheques for security purpose.

Further, in the year 2017, feeds supplied by the petitioners were not standard one and therefore the respondent issued stop payment in respect of the cheques issued to the petitioners.

In order to take further action as against the petitioners, the respondent lodged complaint before the District Crime Branch, Namakkal and after the direction issued by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, the case was registered for the offences under Sections 23, 409, 415 and 420 IPC as against the petitioners.

Towards liability of purchase, the respondent issued cheques for the said sum. Thereafter, the respondent stopped payment and as such both the cheques were returned dishonoured. After issuance of statutory notice, the petitioners initiated proceedings for the offences punishable under Section 138 NI Act.

Bench stated that the private complaint lodged by the respondent was nothing but counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners.

“…impugned complaint is manifestly attended with malafides and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

Hence while allowing the present petition, Court held that “the continuance of the impugned proceedings will be nothing but abuse of process of law and as such the petitioners need not go for ordeal of the trial since the complaint itself cannot be sustained as against the petitioners.” [M. Chandrasekar v. R. Rajamani, Crl. O.P. No. 5608 of 2020, decided on 24-08-2020]

Share this:
Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)More
Related
Madras HC | Limitation provided under CrPC is applicable to complaints under Domestic Violence Act: Court rejects complaint filed after lapse of 1 yr 10 months
August 19, 2020
In “Case Briefs”
All HC | Principle contained in S. 141 of NI Act is not applicable to a sole-proprietary concern, firm need not be arraigned as an accused while making a claim for recovery under S. 138 of the NI Act
October 19, 2020
In “Case Briefs”
Kar HC | Exercising power under S. 482 CrPC, Court quashes chargesheet against arrayed accused in absence of any prima facie case
October 1, 2020
In “Case Briefs”
TAGGED WITH: dishonour of cheque, Judicial Magistrate, Malafide Litigation, Section 138 NI Act, Section 420 IPC
Avatar
Written by Devika
Post navigation
PREVIOUS STORY
1st RMLNLU Alternative Debate 2020
NEXT STORY
Ori HC | Matter pending adjudication before Court is no bar for Lokayukta to exercise its powers under S. 20 (6) of Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014
WE RECOMMEND

CASE BRIEFSSUPREME COURT
Future income of salaried or self-employed person to be considered while computing compensation under MV Act

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
MP HC | In the garb of review, rehearing cannot be permitted; Court dismisses review petition finding no error apparent

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
Del HC | Import of S. 9 NI Act defining ‘holder in due course’ cannot be pre-judged; petition for quashing cheque dishonour complaint dismissed
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

Comment *

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

TRANSLATE

மொழியைத் தேர்வுசெய்
இயக்குவது Google மொழியாக்கம்மொழியாக்கம்
POPULAR ON SCC ONLINE BLOG

HOT OFF THE PRESSNEWS
BCI | “Last & Final Opportunity”; Details of Practicing Advocates to be supplied as per requirement of SC’s e-Committee by 15th November

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
Madras HC | Is an illegitimate child entitled to maintenance under S. 125 CrPC? HC reiterates legal position

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
Madras HC | Once permanent maintenance is received under S. 20 DV Act, yet due to change in circumstances if alteration in maintenance is required, what approach should be resorted? HC elucidates

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
Bom HC | Does Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for relief under Ss. 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act? Read what Court held

CASE BRIEFSTRIBUNALS/COMMISSIONS/REGULATORY BODIES
NCDRC | Can a consumer claim refund of principal amount if flat not delivered on time? Commission untangles two fundamentals for Buyer — Consumer
MOST COMMENTED

HOT OFF THE PRESSNEWS
BCI | “Last & Final Opportunity”; Details of Practicing Advocates to be supplied as per requirement of SC’s e-Committee by 15th November

COVID 19HOT OFF THE PRESSNEWS
[UNLOCK-5] Ministry of Education issues guidelines for re-opening of schools

HOT OFF THE PRESSNEWS
Search & Seizure action carried out by Income tax Department in a case of a leading Advocate

CASE BRIEFSTRIBUNALS/COMMISSIONS/REGULATORY BODIES
NCDRC | Are flat buyers entitled to compensation for not being provided “extra facilities on extra sum”? Commission explains

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
Bom HC | Does Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for relief under Ss. 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act? Read what Court held
TAGS
#SCC Aadhaar Additional Judges Anticipatory Bail Appeal Appointment Appointments Arbitration Bail Bombay High Court Cases Reported CBI Chief Justice Compensation Conviction Corona Virus Coronavirus COVID-19 Cruelty Data Protection Delhi High Court Divorce Evidence FIR GST High Court Interpretation Investigation Jurisdiction Law Lockdown Maintenance MoU Murder NHRC Privacy Rape Reservation SEBI Section 125 CrPC Section 138 NI Act Section 482 Crpc Sentence Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases
Disclaimer : The content of this Blog are for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the personal views of EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause.

© 2018 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.