Actor Vimal suffered another setback in his legal battle over a cheque bounce case related to the production of his film ‘Mannar Vagaiyara’. The Madras High Court dismissed his petition seeking an investigation into allegedly fraudulent documents submitted against him. The court found no legal error in the lower court’s earlier order, dealing another blow to the actor’s efforts to challenge the proceedings.
Madras High Court dismisses Vimal ‘s petition over alleged fake document
According to a report by News 18, Vimal approached the High Court after a lower court refused to entertain his complaint against financier Gopi. The actor claimed that certain cheque details mentioned in the case against him were not present in the original documents and sought action over the alleged submission of fabricated records. However, the court did not accept this submission because there was no error in law in the lower court’s decision.
Vimal’s Rs 4.5 crore loan for ‘Mannar Vagaiyara’ results in cheque bounce case
The case arose from the making of the film ‘Mannar Vagaiyara,’ for which actor Vimal had taken a loan of Rs 4.5 crore from financier Gopi. But when Gopi presented the cheque at the bank, he realized Vimal’s account had no funds. Thereupon, he initiated a cheque bounce case against the actor in the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Chennai. After the hearing, the court found the charges proved against the actor and sentenced him to one year in jail.
Vimal’s attempt to challenge lower court order rejected by Madras High Court
Post-conviction, Vimal filed a petition asking for action against Gopi regarding the reportedly fraudulent documents. The lower court rejected his petition because the matter relating to the cheque bounce case had already been resolved. Objecting to this, the actor went to the Madras High Court seeking directions to file and hear his complaint. Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan, who heard the petition, found no basis to intervene in the lower court’s order.Disclaimer: This report is a journalistic account of a recent court development. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy based on available information, this is not a substitute for the official court order or legal advice. The final ruling, which will be published by the court, is the definitive source of information. This article serves as a report on the current status of the case and should not be considered legal guidance.
