M Balamurugan vs A Kiruthika rep through Power Agent — 18/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 16th April 2026.

Case disposed

CRLA - Criminal Appeal

CNR: TNCG010008832024

e-Filing Number

18-02-2024

Filing Number

608/2024

Filing Date

21-Feb-2024

Registration No

18/2024

Registration Date

21-Feb-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet

Judge

3-Addl. District Judge

Decision Date

16-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
Code of Criminal Procedure Section 389(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M Balamurugan

    Adv. R.KARTHIKEYAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.A Kiruthika rep through Power Agent

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: Criminal Appeal No. 18/2024 The appellate court dismissed M. Balamurugan's appeal and confirmed his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Balamurugan borrowed ₹15,00,000 from A. Kiruthika in 2018, executing a promissory note. He issued two cheques for ₹7,50,000 each in September 2019 to repay the debt, but both were dishonored for insufficient funds. Despite a legal notice, he failed to pay within 15 days, leading to prosecution. The court found he admitted signing the cheques and could not rebut the statutory presumption of debt discharge. Conviction and 6-month imprisonment plus ₹17,50,000 fine were upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District Judge

  5. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District Judge

  6. 06-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District Judge

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District Judge

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District Judge

  9. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District Judge

  10. 06-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District Judge

  11. 10-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District Judge

  12. 21-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  13. 04-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  14. 19-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  15. 16-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District Judge

  16. 25-Sep-2025

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  17. 18-Jul-2025

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  18. 08-Apr-2025

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  19. 11-Mar-2025

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  20. 07-Mar-2025

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  21. 04-Feb-2025

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  22. 20-Jan-2025

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  23. 10-Dec-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  24. 15-Nov-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  25. 30-Aug-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  26. 08-Aug-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  27. 31-Jul-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  28. 01-Jul-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  29. 15-Jun-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  30. 11-Jun-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  31. 18-Apr-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  32. 27-Feb-2024

    Issue of Service

    Addl. District Judge

  33. 21-Feb-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 21-Feb-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 18/2024

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: Criminal Appeal No. 18/2024 The appellate court dismissed M. Balamurugan's appeal and confirmed his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Balamurugan borrowed ₹15,00,000 from A. Kiruthika in 2018, executing a promissory note. He issued two cheques for ₹7,50,000 each in September 2019 to repay the debt, but both were dishonored for insufficient funds. Despite a legal notice, he failed to pay within 15 days, leading to prosecution. The court found he admitted signing the cheques and could not rebut the statutory presumption of debt discharge. Conviction and 6-month imprisonment plus ₹17,50,000 fine were upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case