Jagadeeswari G vs Sundar V — 113/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Conviction on 24th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNCG060035082023

Filing Number

3494/2023

Filing Date

06-Apr-2023

Registration No

113/2023

Registration Date

16-May-2023

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet

Judge

8-Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

Decision Date

24-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Conviction

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jagadeeswari G

    Adv. Magesh Kumar.H.T

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sundar V

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case 113/2023 Summary Jagadeeswari v. Sundar – The Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000. The court found that the complainant proved all essential elements: the cheque was issued for a loan, presented within validity, returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, and statutory notice was properly served. The accused's defense that the cheque was stolen in 2017 lacked credible evidence, and he failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring the complainant. Sentence: Six months simple imprisonment plus compensation of the cheque amount or one month additional imprisonment in default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  5. 16-Apr-2026

    Compliance

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Compliance

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    Compliance

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    Compliance

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  9. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  10. 03-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  11. 23-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  12. 10-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  13. 30-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  14. 12-Jan-2026

    Oral EvidenceView PDF

  15. 12-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  16. 09-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  17. 16-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  18. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  19. 01-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  20. 14-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  21. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  22. 29-Aug-2025

    Oral EvidenceView PDF

  23. 29-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  24. 01-Aug-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  25. 04-Jul-2025

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  26. 27-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  27. 20-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  28. 23-May-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  29. 17-Apr-2025

    Oral EvidenceView PDF

  30. 17-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  31. 27-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  32. 07-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  33. 28-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  34. 30-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  35. 29-Nov-2024

    Oral EvidenceView PDF

  36. 29-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  37. 08-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  38. 15-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  39. 06-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  40. 20-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  41. 09-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  42. 23-Jul-2024

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  43. 05-Jul-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  44. 21-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  45. 07-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  46. 03-May-2024

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  47. 12-Apr-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  48. 15-Mar-2024

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  49. 16-Feb-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  50. 05-Jan-2024

    Counter

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  51. 15-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  52. 01-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  53. 17-Nov-2023

    Oral EvidenceView PDF

  54. 17-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  55. 15-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  56. 23-Jun-2023

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  57. 16-Jun-2023

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu

  58. 16-May-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  59. 06-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 113/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case 113/2023 Summary Jagadeeswari v. Sundar – The Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000. The court found that the complainant proved all essential elements: the cheque was issued for a loan, presented within validity, returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, and statutory notice was properly served. The accused's defense that the cheque was stolen in 2017 lacked credible evidence, and he failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring the complainant. Sentence: Six months simple imprisonment plus compensation of the cheque amount or one month additional imprisonment in default. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case