VASU vs SATHIYANANTHAM — 366/2022

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138142. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th March 2026.

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNTU020035442022

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

3541/2022

Filing Date

21-04-2022

Registration No

366/2022

Registration Date

22-04-2022

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirupathur

Judge

7-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Acts & Sections

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138142
MP/1/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section VASUSATHIYANANTHAM
MP/2/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section SATHIYANANTHAMVASU
MP/4/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section SATHIYANANTHAMVASU
MP/5/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section SATHIYANANTHAMVASU

Petitioner(s)

VASU

Adv. PALANI D

Respondent(s)

SATHIYANANTHAM

Hearing History

Judge: 7-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur

17-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

Judgement

27-02-2026

Judgement

19-02-2026

Judgement

13-02-2026

Judgement

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

Case Summary The court acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Although the complainant proved that a cheque for Rs. 10 lakh was issued and dishonored due to insufficient funds, the defense successfully established that the cheque was given as security for a partnership firm ("Lakshmi Saraswathi Finance") in which both parties were partners—not as repayment for a personal loan. The complainant failed to produce documentary evidence of any legally enforceable debt or money transaction between them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Although the complainant proved that a cheque for Rs. 10 lakh was issued and dishonored due to insufficient funds, the defense successfully established that the cheque was given as security for a partnership firm ("Lakshmi Saraswathi Finance") in which both parties were partners—not as repayment for a personal loan. The complainant failed to produce documentary evidence of any legally enforceable debt or money transaction between them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirupathur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case