Dismissed

Kabar @Abdul Kabar v. K.Boominathan

Madras HC8 Sept 2014CRL RC/608/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision against an order allowing additional charges (Sections 34, 419, 468, 471 IPC) alongside Section 138 NI Act charges during trial, the Court dismissed the petition noting the impugned order aligned with precedent. The matter was placed in the custody of the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The impugned order upholding the addition of charges was sustained.

Kabar @Abdul Kabar Vs K.Boominathan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2014

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

Kabar @ Abdul Kabar ... Petitioner/ Accused

¶8

¶9

K.Boominathan ... Respondent/ Complainant

¶10

Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, in C.M.P.No.5877 of 2013 in C.C.No.393 of 2010 dated 20.05.2014.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar

¶13

Petitioner challenges the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, passed in C.M.P.No.5877 of 2013 in C.C.No.393 of 2010 on 20.05.2014.

¶14

The respondent preferred a complaint informing that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and towards repayment thereof, issued a cheque bearing No.985920 dated 07.06.2010 drawn on the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Mettupalayam, in such sum. When presented for payment on 08.06.2010, the same was returned unpaid with the endorsement 'insufficient funds'. The respondent/complainant had caused statutory notice on 12.06.2010 through registered post. On having no payment as demanded in the statutory notice, the respondent preferred the complaint in keeping with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.393 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. The trial in the case has been commenced and some of the witnesses has been examined. At such stage, the respondent has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.5877 of 2013 in C.C.No.393 of 2010 seeking a direction to frame additional charges u/s.34, 419,

¶15

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

¶16

468 and 471 IPC along the charge u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was allowed under orders dated 20.05.2014. There against, this revision has been filed.

¶17

There is no representation for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is present.

¶18

The order under challenge is in keeping with the decision of this Court in N.Anbarasu v. M.Ganesan [CDJ 2007 MHC 585]. Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of such order read thus:

¶19

“6. Under Section 216 Cr.P.C., the Court may alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. After alteration or addition of the charge, the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial, as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. The trial Court may have to take care of the accused, so that prejudice should not be caused to him and thereby all opportunities must be given to him.

¶20

In such circumstances, during the course of trial of a summons case, when new materials came into existence through the evidence, the complainant is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C.”

¶21

The Court below would do well to follow the procedure above informed.

¶22

This Criminal Revision shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Asst.Registrar (Lok adalat) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar gm

¶24

To The Judicial Magistrate Mettupalayam Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2014 SAI (CO) kk 1/10

¶25

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

Kabar @Abdul Kabar v. K.Boominathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabar @Abdul Kabar v. K.Boominathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Senthil @ Senthilkumar, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

Gaffar Khan Vs Rashida Khan

V.Ramadoss Vs the State Rep by

P.Senapathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Castrol India Ltd. Vs Pemier Steel& Allied Industrie

V.Ethirajulu Vs M.Jayaprakash