Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 6327 of 2008 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2008. Case: N. Murugesan Vs ICICI Bank Ltd.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberCrl. O.P. (MD) No. 6327 of 2008 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2008
CounselFor Appellant: Antony S. Prabhar, Adv. and For Respondents: Pala Ramasamy, Adv.
JudgesV. S. Ravi, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 200, 482; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138
Judgement DateJuly 04, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)


V. S. Ravi, J.

  1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records in C.C. No. 1542 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate IV, Tirunelveli, and quash the same.

  2. The petitioner has pointed out in the petition that the complaint has been filed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

  3. The point that arises for consideration in this criminal original petition is as follows:-

    Whether the petitioner is entitled to get an order to quash the case pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli in C.C. No. 1542/2008 for the reasons stated in the petition?

  4. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent bank has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli, in C.C. No. 1542 of 2008, now pending for disposal. Further, the petitioner himself has admitted in the petition that he has applied to the respondent bank for a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- during 2nd December 2006 and the petitioner has approached the respondent bank for getting loan only at the rate of 10% interest. Further, the petitioner has admitted that the respondent bank has issued a legal notice dated 23.08.2007 to the petitioner, in which it has been stated about the loan amount borrowed by the petitioner. Further, in the typed set papers filed along with the petition, at page number 4, the petitioner has enclosed the legal notice dated 23.08.2007 issued by the respondent bank. Further, the petitioner has stated that the respondent bank has issued the notice to the wrong address and the respondent has failed to file the complaint within the stipulated period.

  5. It is well settled law that this Court can entertain petition under the provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C., and also this Court would be justified in exercising the power to prevent injustice and/or

    i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

    i) to prevent abuse of the process of Court;

    ii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

    Further, it is also well settled that the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. This, Court, in the present matter, is unable to notice any valid reasons to interfere with the said proceedings of the Lower Court. This Court, is also of the view, that the present petition...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT