Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Sect. 138 N.I. Act: Procedure Should Never Be Made a Tool to Deny Justice: Andhra Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, has dismissed a Criminal Petition seeking to quash a complaint in a cheque fraud case. The petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, involved complex issues surrounding a fraudulent cheque and the misuse of a power of attorney.

The court, in its detailed observation, emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, stating, “Procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use.” This remark underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that procedural technicalities do not overshadow substantive rights and the pursuit of justice.

The case, registered as Criminal Petition No. 2885 of 2019, centered around a complaint against the accused for issuing a colored Xerox copy of a cheque amounting to Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. The petition raised critical legal questions about the validity of actions taken under a power of attorney in criminal proceedings and the impact of procedural defects in legal processes.

Justice Rajasekhar Rao, in his ruling, referenced several landmark judgments, reinforcing the principle that the courts exist to decide on the rights of parties, not to punish them for procedural mistakes. He highlighted, “If there was an inadvertent technical violation of the rule in consequence of a bona fide mistake, and the mistake is subsequently remedied, the defect need not necessarily be fatal.”

The decision to dismiss the petition and continue with the trial process reflects the court’s approach to resolving disputes through comprehensive factual examination. The ruling is a reminder of the legal system’s role in balancing procedural requirements with the need for substantive justice.

Date of Decision: 9 November 2023

A Rafeeq vs C Vijaya

Similar News