AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er was given liberty to raise all the factual contentions before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram during the course of trial. 3. Now this petition is filed for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the complaint does not whisper about the non payment of the amount demanded by the complainant from the accused through his statutory notice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raising the legal plea is maintainable after the first petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on factual foundation was dismissed. 5. It is his further submission that as the complaint lacks required pleadings as contemplated unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r one and a half years. It was for this reason that, despite the earlier order dated 12th December, 1968, the High Court proceeded to consider the subsequent application of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of deciding whether it should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561A. This the High Court was perfectly entitled to do and we do not see any jurisdictional infirmity in the order of the High Court. Even on the merits, we find that the order of the High Court was justified as no prima facie case appears to have been made out against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 7. In the aforesaid case, the accused invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings at the first instance and the High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of the Delhi High Court in A.M. Berry v. Ravi Arora 1992 CRI. L.J. 1327 wherein it has been observed as follows:- Regarding the maintainability of the petition, it is an admitted fact that the earlier petitioner was dismissed in limine on 1.5.1987, even without calling for the record, by passing only one word order "dismissed". At that time notice under Section 251 mentioning the particulars of the offence of which he was accused was not even served upon him. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer West Bengal v. Mohan Singh that Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 482) preserves inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse of criminal proceedings which would give scope for the person aggrieved to knock at the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, but when he is posted with all the facts and circumstances of a case, he cannot withhold part of it for the purpose of filing yet another petition seeking the very same relief. 14. In this case, the petitioner who had already entered on trial filed the second petition invoking the provision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without any change of circumstances. If such petitions are entertained, there will be no end for the litigations and the parties will definitely start misusing the process of law. In view of the above, it is held that the second petition filed under Section 482 of the Code ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Devaraj v. T.K. Koya 2003 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC (Mad.) 7, wherein this Court has observed as follows:- It is mandatory on the part of the complainant to say in clear terms whether the accused had paid the amount, or gave any other explanation withholding the payment or any other excuses. But in the present complaint there is absolutely no whisper at all in relation to that effect. 19. That was a case where there was no whisper about the response of the accused to the notice issued by the complainant. But here in this case, as already pointed out, the nil response from the accused to settle the amount within the stipulated period was clearly stated in the complaint. Further the complainant has prayed the Court to recover the amount o....