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.

CRLA - Criminal Appeal

CNR: TNCG010008832024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

18-02-2024

Filing Number

608/2024

Filing Date

21-02-2024

Registration No

18/2024

Registration Date

21-02-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet

Judge

3-Addl. District Judge

Decision Date

16th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 389(1)

Petitioner(s)

M Balamurugan

Adv. R.KARTHIKEYAN

Respondent(s)

A Kiruthika rep through Power Agent

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Addl. District Judge

16-04-2026

Disposed

09-04-2026

Judgement

07-04-2026

Judgement

06-04-2026

Judgement

30-03-2026

Judgement

Final Orders / Judgements

16-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case