T.R.K. KARTHICK Vs. SUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Records were also perused.

(2.) THE de-facto complainant in a case instituted on the file of the trial court, namely the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai is the petitioner in the criminal revision case. He preferred a private complaint against the respondent alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on the dishonour of a cheque allegedly issued by the respondent in discharge of a debt due to the petitioner/complainant. The learned Judicial Magistrate, following the procedure prescribed for taking cognizance of case on private complaint took it on file as STC No.2681 of 2005 and issued process.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that after a lapse of six years, that too after the completion of the examination of PW1, the respondent/accused chose to file the above said petition only as an attempt to prolong the case as long as possible and that the same was nothing but an attempt aimed at vexation.