IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.
1 AT
PANRUTI
Crl.M.P.NO: /2024
In
S.T.C.NO: 749/2015
Murugan … Complainant
-Vs-
R.Kamalakannan … Accused
REPLY TO THE APPLICATION UNDER Sec.143A OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTSACT-1881 ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
PRELIMINARILY OBJECTIONS:-
1. That the present complaint is false and frivolous and there was no dealing
regarding the cheque amount whatsoever between the accused and the
complainant, hence the present applica�on for interim compensa�on and
the complaint are not maintainable.
2. That the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble
court and their case is based upon chea�ng and fraud, hence the present
applica�on along with the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3. That there is no outstanding liability or debt whatsoever standing against the
accused in favour of the complainant, so the ques�on of issuance of cheque
for discharge of legal liability does not arise. Hence the present applica�on
along with complaint liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. That the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and the
present complaint have been twisted to maliciously prosecute the
accused/respondent and to make him a vic�m of their greedy planning,
Hence the present applica�on along with complaint liable to be dismissed
with cost.
5. That there is no prima facie case made out against the accused and these
cheque are not issue for discharge of legal liability, infact these were security
cheque and complainant was liable to return it, therefore there is no locus
standi to the complainant for file present complaint and applica�on, Hence
the present applica�on along with complaint liable to be dismissed with cost.
Parawise Reply on Merit:
1. That the reply to para no.1 of the applica�on, is a legal provision reiterarted
as mater of record.
2. That the reply to para no.2 of the applica�on, is wrong and denied. That the
applica�on under sec.143A is discre�onary and not mandatory. And the
Sec.143A Amendment came into force on 1st of September 2018 and not 2nd
of August 2018. Thus the cause of ac�on of this case arose on the year 2015
i.e when the case was filed but the Amendment of Sec.143A was enforced in
the year 2018. It is hereby to note the important Fact of Law i.e. That
Amendment of Sec.143A has only Prospec�ve Effect and not Retrospec�ve
in nature. So it is here needless to state that this Applica�on for Interim
compensa�on is not even maintainable by law and deemed to be be
dismissed with cost.
3. That Gran�ng interim compensa�on in the present Complaint will be
Miscarriage of Jus�ce.
Prayer:-
It is respec�ully prayed that the present applica�on along with Complaint
may kindly be dismissed with Cost.
Date: .09.2024
Place: Panru�.
Advocate for Accused
T.SANTHOSHKUMAR B.A.B.L.,
Advocate for Accused
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
NO.1 AT PANRUTI
Crl.M.P.NO: /2024
In
STC.NO.749/2015
Murugan …. Complainant
-vs-
R.Kamalakannan …. Accused
REPLY TO THE APPLICATION
UNDER
Sec.143A OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT ACT-1881
ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
