MUHAMMAD HANEEFA vs SREEKANTH — 500459/2023
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act \ Section 138. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 28th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL190012092023
Filing Number
501183/2023
Filing Date
10-11-2023
Registration No
500459/2023
Registration Date
10-11-2023
Court
JFMC II, Mavelikkara
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara
Decision Date
28th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MUHAMMAD HANEEFA
Adv. MUJEEB REHMAN. A
Respondent(s)
SREEKANTH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
For further hearing
Order/Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 05-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 28-02-2026 | Order/Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court acquitted the accused Sreekanth of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding him not guilty. While the court established that the cheque was executed by the accused and statutory presumptions favored the complainant, it found the accused's defense—that he had issued a blank signed cheque to Mr. Suresh (not the complainant) which was later misused—to be probable. The complainant's failure to adequately plead and prove the original transaction with the accused, combined with evidence showing differences in handwriting and the complainant's admission of not knowing who filled in the cheque details, was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions, warranting acquittal under Section 255(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court acquitted the accused Sreekanth of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding him not guilty. While the court established that the cheque was executed by the accused and statutory presumptions favored the complainant, it found the accused's defense—that he had issued a blank signed cheque to Mr. Suresh (not the complainant) which was later misused—to be probable. The complainant's failure to adequately plead and prove the original transaction with the accused, combined with evidence showing differences in handwriting and the complainant's admission of not knowing who filled in the cheque details, was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions, warranting acquittal under Section 255(1) CrPC. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts