USHA Vs. B GOBINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant are the same parties in all these revision cases. In all these cases, various cheques issued by the petitioner/accused in favour of the respondent/complainant bounced and therefore, the respondent initiated the complaints in C. C. Nos: 273, 276,277,275 274 and 272 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

(2.) ON receipt of summons, the petitioner filed discharge petitions in c. M. P. Nos: 162, 165,166, 164, 163 and 161 of 2003 on various grounds and the same were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate as not maintainable. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner/ accused has preferred these Criminal Revision Cases.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent would contend that as per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others, reported in 2004 (7) SCC 338, the discharge petitions filed by the revision petitioner at this stage are not maintainable and therefore, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli need not be interfered. In the said judgment, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held as follows :