2018 (9) TMI 1075

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion, since her name is printed in the cause list today. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had money transaction with one Maharajan of V.O.C Street, Samatharmapuram, Theni and he was paying an exorbitant interest of Rs. 1,200/- per month for the loan amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Inspite of paying around Rs. 1,00,000/-, he did not discharge him from the debt and he and his friend Saravanan have threatened and obtained signature in the blank white paper and also in his cheque leaf. Alleging that, he gave a complaint on 21.01.2013 to the Superintendent of Police, Theni District. Pursuant to this complaint, the police has enquired the matter and compromised the dispute between him and Maharajan. Pursuant to the compromis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Police, about the high-handedness of Maharajan and Saravanan and the evidence of the complainant, who is a person unknown to the revision petitioner are suffice to rebut the presumption. The subject cheque was not issued to any legally enforceable debt. While so, the trial Court, just because the signature found in the subject cheque is that of the revision petitioner, has held against the revision petitioner and erroneously convicted him. 5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the deposition of the complainant- P.W.1, particularly pointed out that in the complaint, it is stated that the accused is running the saloon shop. In fact the accused/revision petitioner is running the laundry sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... averment that she and the revision petitioner are known to each other. He borrowed the money on 19.11.2012 at her residence and within one month, he gave a cheque to discharge the said debt, but in the cross examination she admits that she does not even know the residential address of the revision petitioner/accused. She admits that her dealing with the revision petitioner was only to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- and 2,000/- and not more than that. She also admits that she knows Maharajan of Samatharmapuram, Theni District. 8.Her admission, in the light of the complaint given to the Superintendent of Police, Theni District on 21.01.2013, goes to show that the blank cheque, which was given to Maharajan of Samatharmapuram, has been misused to....