Dismissed

S.Ganapathy Rep by Power Agent v. G.Jamal Mydeen

Madras HC11 Dec 2013CRL RC(MD)/834/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed against an order rejecting a belated petition to reopen a cheque dishonour case for the complainant to examine himself as a witness, noting the complainant had ample prior opportunity and failed to utilize it. The original order was found to be free from infirmity.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage; the connected M.P. is closed.

S.Ganapathy Rep by Power Agent Vs G.Jamal Mydeen — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.12.2013

¶3

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶4

CRL.R.C.(MD) No.834 of 2013 AND MP(MD).NO.1 of 2013

¶5

S.Ganapathy rep. By Power Agent S.G.Geetha ... Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Complainant Vs.

¶6

G.Jamal Mydeen ... Respondent Respondent/Accused

¶7

Prayer: Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 10.10.2013 made in C.M.P.No.6028 of 2013 in C.C.No.17 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichirappalli District and pass such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichirappalli District in C.M.P.No.6028 of 2013 in C.C.No.17 of 2011 dated 10.10.2013 rejecting the application filed by the complainant to re-open the case.

¶11

The complainant filed the private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through his power Agent Geetha. In the course of trial, the power agent was examined as P.W.1 and after completion of evidence, the case was posted for argument. In that stage, the complainant has filed a petition to examine himself as a witness with regard to the transaction between himself and the accused by re-opening the evidence.

¶12

3.According to the petitioner, on the previous occasion when the same request to examine the complainant as a witness was allowed at the instance of the complainant he could not avail leave from the Educational Institution where he was working and therefore, he could not examine himself. Now he seeks to re-open the evidence for examining himself as a witness.

¶13

4.The saidapplication had been strongly opposed by the respondent before the lower court on the ground that it is not only highly belated but on the earlier occasion the application was allowed but however in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him he did not avail that opportunity and failed to examine himself as a witness. It was further submitted by the respondent before the lower court that the this Court has directed the Magistrate to dispose of the case within six months and therefore, this application should not be entertained.

¶14

Admittedly, the complaint was filed in the year 2011. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ daughter of the complainant is the power agent and she was examined as P.W.1 on 27.12.2011 and subsequently P.W.2 and 3 were examined and the

¶15

¶16

complainant's evidence was closed. Therefore, he had filed a petition in C.M.P.No.3198 of 2012 to re-open the case so as to examine himself as a witness and the same was allowed on 05.02.2012. But however he has not examined himself in spite of sufficient opportunities given by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the complainant's evidence was closed. With this state of affairs, he has filed this petition for the second time seeking for same relief.

¶17

5.The learned Magistrate after considering the above said factors dismissed the petition which in my view did not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, the Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed at admission stage itself. Consequently, connected M.P iss also closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶20

\True copy\

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1 The Judicial Magistrate VI, Tiruchirappalli

¶24

2 -Do-thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli

¶25

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.834 of 2013

¶26

and

¶27

MP(MD).NO.1/2013 11.12.2013

¶28

SES

¶29

NA/08/01/2014/P2/3C

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Ganapathy Rep by Power Agent v. G.Jamal Mydeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ganapathy Rep by Power Agent v. G.Jamal Mydeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anthoni Muthu Vs Elwin Jesuthas

P.Velmurugan Vs P.Rajendran

Kannan Vs Muthumanikandan

N. Chirstopher Raj Vs a. Pazhani

Rajagopal, Vs v.Raman

Thirumurugesh Vs the Inspector of Police