Mekala Ramanna vs M.Akilan — 357/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 200. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 06th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTR350042652022
Filing Number
4262/2022
Filing Date
07-11-2022
Registration No
357/2022
Registration Date
23-12-2022
Court
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Ambattur
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mekala Ramanna
Adv. M/S.T.RAMADEVI, D.VIJAYKANTH REDDY
Respondent(s)
M.Akilan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 11-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Ambattur Fast Track Court acquitted Mr. M. Akilan of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the complainant proved the cheques bounced due to insufficient funds, the accused successfully raised a probable defense showing he had borrowed only Rs. 2,00,000 (not Rs. 7,50,000 as claimed) and repaid it with interest through bank transfers, with the cheques issued as security—creating reasonable doubt about a legally enforceable debt. The court found the complainant approached with "unclean hands" by concealing repayment facts and drew adverse inferences from the complainant's refusal to produce financial records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The Ambattur Fast Track Court acquitted Mr. M. Akilan of cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the complainant proved the cheques bounced due to insufficient funds, the accused successfully raised a probable defense showing he had borrowed only Rs. 2,00,000 (not Rs. 7,50,000 as claimed) and repaid it with interest through bank transfers, with the cheques issued as security—creating reasonable doubt about a legally enforceable debt. The court found the complainant approached with "unclean hands" by concealing repayment facts and drew adverse inferences from the complainant's refusal to produce financial records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts