9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the respondent, who is the complainant in the Lower Court. 3.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a offset printer in the name and style of M/s. Anna Glori Offset Printers and the husband of the respondent namely Michael is working as a Government School Teacher, who used to visit the petitioner's offset press for printing purpose and developed close friendship with the petitioner. 4.Further, the said Michael had also invested money to an extent of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner's business, prior to five years and the same was settled to the petitioner. Periodically the respondent's husband making payment to the petitioner, so far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry and appeared on 29.05.2008, thereafter, the case was adjourned for two hearings and on the third hearing date the case was not called till evening and on the petitioner's enquiry, the Bench Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Puducherry informed that the C.C.No.250 of 2008 has been closed. After two years, he had received summons from the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Puducherry for another criminal proceedings in C.C.No.78 of 2009, which is also initiated based on the same cheque bearing No.003355 of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Puducherry. Aggrieved against the act of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, taking cognizance twice on the same criminal complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.2010 and on 01.12.2010, the evidence of the complainant was closed and Ex.P1 to P6 have been marked. 11.At this stage, the petitioner/accused had approached this Court and had obtained stay. For the same case the accused had received summons from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry in C.C.No.250 of 2008, though, the petitioner was initially projecting the case before this Court for one cause of action, Court Below has taken cognizance in C.C.No.250 of 2008 and again in C.C.No.78 of 2009 is on a misconception. 12.The respondent/complainant denied the averments and stated that he had filed only one case against the petitioner/accused and on perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the contention of the petitioner/accused is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be seen by the adjudication dated 16.04.2010 and the case thereafter periodically adjourned for trial and finally, the evidence of the complainant was recorded by way of proof affidavit on 01.12.2010 and Ex.P1 to P6 have been marked. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the above quash petition on 08.04.2011 due to which the trial is pending. In the meanwhile, the records have been called for and the trial in C.C.No.78 of 2009 had been successfully put on hold for the past seven years. 14.The learned counsel for the petitioner sensing that this Court is not accepting the contention of the petitioner, though initially appeared and made his submissions, thereafter, failed to appear before this Court, on subsequent dates despite the name of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
