Jothimain.P vs Rajeswari. E Advocate - R.M.Raj — 6333/2024
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 432(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 28th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTJ010100172024
Filing Number
7131/2024
Filing Date
30-08-2024
Registration No
6333/2024
Registration Date
30-08-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Thanjavur
Judge
1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jothimain.P
Adv. Parthiban. K
Respondent(s)
Rajeswari. E Advocate - R.M.Raj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur
Disposed
Orders
Orders
Orders
Orders
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Orders |
| 16-04-2026 | Orders |
| 10-04-2026 | Orders |
| 30-03-2026 | Orders |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and permitted the accused (Jothimani) to mark a certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 17.10.2018 (Document No. 6045/2018) as additional evidence in his appeal. The court found the registered sale deed to be relevant and material evidence necessary for just adjudication of the cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly regarding the nature of the transaction and existence of legally enforceable liability. The document was admitted as Ex.D1 despite the complainant's objections that it was irrelevant and an attempt to protract proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and permitted the accused (Jothimani) to mark a certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 17.10.2018 (Document No. 6045/2018) as additional evidence in his appeal. The court found the registered sale deed to be relevant and material evidence necessary for just adjudication of the cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly regarding the nature of the transaction and existence of legally enforceable liability. The document was admitted as Ex.D1 despite the complainant's objections that it was irrelevant and an attempt to protract proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts