Search Judgments

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Sections 200, 202, 203, 204 and 156(3); Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 120(B), 193, 196, 209, 418, 420, 465, 469, 471, 474 and 506; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act; Tamil Nadu Money Lender’s Act. – This case arises from a criminal revision against an order dismissing a private complaint filed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The complainant, a retired railway employee, alleged that he borrowed money from the first respondent, a Junior Assistant in HAPP, who also engaged in money lending. The complainant claimed the respondent took his sale deed and blank signed sheets as security, later misused these to file a civil suit for recovery of a larger sum.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 156(3) – The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision against the dismissal of his petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., seeking a direction for police investigation into his complaint. The petitioner alleged theft of scrap from his shop in 2015 and again in 2023, accusing respondents 1 to 8. The petitioner claimed that the police failed to act on his complaints, prompting him to approach the court.

The court noted that previous complaints by the petitioner regarding the 2015 incidents had already resulted in FIRs, investigations, and final reports.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and Section 56 – These criminal original petitions were filed to quash proceedings in C.C.Nos.122, 123, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135 and 136 of 2022, before the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukotai, concerning dishonored cheques. The respondent filed private complaints alleging that the petitioners failed to pay for supplied materials, resulting in dishonored cheques.

The petitioners argued that partial payments were made during the cheque period, necessitating endorsement on the cheques as per Section 56 of the NI Act, citing a Madras High Court judgment. The respondent contended the payments weren’t specifically linked to the cheques.

(Bail Application)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483, and The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 296(b), 125, 132, 109(1), and 351(3). The petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2026 and remanded on 09.04.2026. The prosecution alleged that while the petitioner was already in police custody, he joined other accused in pelting stones, abusing police personnel, and causing public panic. The petitioner, a journalist, contended the case was concocted, arguing it was improbable to commit such acts while in custody. He also highlighted inconsistencies with another FIR (Crime No.258 of 2026) regarding a witness and vehicle projected in mutually contradictory roles on the same day.

(Protection of Dowry Givers under Dowry Prohibition Act)

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act)Sections 3 and 7(3) of, alongside Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - The petitioner (husband) sought an FIR against his wife and her family for "giving dowry" under Section 3 DP Act. His complaint was based exclusively on statements made by his wife and her family under Section 161 CrPC, during the investigation of an FIR previously filed by the wife against him for dowry harassment (Section 498A IPC, Section 3 DP Act for taking dowry).

The petitioner's attempts to register this counter-FIR were rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Sessions Judge, and the High Court. These courts reasoned that such a direction would amount to reinvestigation or that no cognizable offence was adequately made out based solely on the presented facts.

(Defamation, Survival of Cause of Action, and Qualified Privilege)

This second appeal challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which awarded Rs. 75,000/- as damages for defamation to the plaintiff (an Advocate).

The relevant legal provisions considered were the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 306; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Section 100, Order 22 Rules 3, 4, and 11; and for analogy, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 394.

The defendant had filed a complaint against the plaintiff with the District Judge/Legal Services Authority, accusing him of misconduct for not returning documents. This complaint was eventually closed.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c), 22(c), 28 and 29. – This is a successive bail application filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for offences under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner supplied cocaine and MDMA to another accused, who was later apprehended with the contraband. The petitioner was arrested after a Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 28, 29 and 67 – This case concerns a bail petition filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for offences under the NDPS Act, specifically related to the possession and trafficking of 160 kilograms of ganja. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was transporting the ganja from Andhra Pradesh to Chennai in a car, which was intercepted based on specific information.

The petitioner argued that there was no proper compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution, as the grounds of arrest were not adequately communicated, and no public witnesses were involved during the seizure. The prosecution countered that the arrest memo served to the petitioner explained the reasons for the arrest and that all mandatory provisions were followed.

(Quashing of Police Summons to an Advocate for a Legal Notice)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 528 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Section 80 - This petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash a police summon issued to an Advocate. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, challenged a summon directing him to appear for an enquiry solely because he had issued a legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on behalf of his client.

The core issue was whether a counsel, merely discharging professional duty by issuing a statutory legal notice, could be compelled to appear before the police for enquiry regarding its contents, absent any complaint or criminal case against the Advocate.

The petitioner contended he acted in his professional capacity, relaying his client's instructions, with no complaint or FIR against him. He argued the police should question the client for factual verification, deeming the summon illegal, arbitrary, and an attempt to intimidate, thus hindering his professional duties.