9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Crl.O.P.No.6774 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to call for the records relating to the case in STC No.1577 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri and quash the same. 3. Crl.O.P.No.6774 of 2006 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.285 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Dharmapuri and quash the same. 4. It is seen from the records that the respondent herein filed similar complaints under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners/accused for alleged offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of three cheques issued by R. Kanthimathi, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6773 of 2006 are as follows No. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Drawn on (Dharmapuri Branch) Cheque amount 1. 28.06.2004 687553 Indian Bank ₹ 3,30,000/- 2. 30.06.2004 526316 Indian Bank ₹ 3,45,000/- 3. 06.07.2004 687554 Indian Bank ₹ 5,50,000/- 7. The details of the cheque issued by P.Sreenivasan, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6774 of 2006 is as follows : No. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Drawn on (Dharmapuri Branch) Cheque amount 1. 09.02.2004 817995 Indian Bank ₹ 4,40,000/ 8. The details of two cheques issued by M.Vijayakumari, petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6775 of 2006 are as follows No. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Drawn on (Dharmapu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ummons to the petitioners in all the cases. According to the learned counsel, the procedure followed by the trial court is not legally sustainable. Therefore, it should be construed as an abuse of process of court and accordingly, the criminal proceedings, pending before the trial court are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the following decisions : 1. Kanhai Raut vs. Budhan Mahto, 1978 Crl.L.J 667 2. S.V.Arjunaraja vs. P.Vasantha, 2005 (5) CTC 401 3. Pradeep vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 Crl.L.J. 1056 4. M.Muraleedharan vs. Sreeram Investment Ltd., (2006) 129 Comp Cas 465 (Ker) 5. Sanjay Raghuram vs. T.I.F.Ltd., (2006) 133 Comp Cas 450 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vasantha, reported in 2005 (5) CTC 401, is not applicable for the facts and circumstances of the case, since the case referred therein relating to court fees paid after the period of limitation, in a case, filed on promissory note. 16. In the decision, Suresh Kumar vs. Firm Kurban Hussain Taiyab Ali, reported in AIR 1996 MP151, it has been held that for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, a formal application would not be required, if the facts presented before the Court satisfies the judicial conscience of the Court that the applicant before it was prevented for sufficient cause in bringing the proceedings well within limitation. If the Court is of the opinion that in absence of formal application the delay cannot be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
