Case Summary
The complainant Shanavas alleged that the accused Sunil Lal issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The court dismissed the complaint as the complainant did not appear to prosecute the case.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Criminal Case
Final Judgment
No
The complaint was dismissed and the accused was acquitted due to the complainant's failure to appear in court.
Key Reasoning:
The complainant was not interested in prosecuting the case, resulting in dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant was not interested in prosecuting the case, resulting in dismissal of the complaint.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It is presumed that complainant is not interested in prosecuting the case.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result: The complaint is dismissed under section 256 (1) of Cr.P.C. and resultantly the accused is acquitted.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shanavas
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sunil Lal
- Relation
- Prop. Smart Four Rice Agencies
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. A.Abdul Khalam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Francis Jude Netto
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
The complaint was dismissed under section 256(1) of Cr.P.C.
Evidence:
The complaint is dismissed under section 256 (1) of Cr.P.C. and resultantly the accused is acquitted.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Criminal Case
Category
Cheque Bounce Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Cheque dishonour
Case Code
ST.NO.
Case Code Year
2020
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour under Section 138 N.I. Act