Allowed

V.Manikkam v. K.Natarajan

Madras HC16 Oct 2015CRL A/604/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal filed challenging the summary trial dismissal order dated 15-05-2015 under Section 256 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 138 NI Act. The High Court set aside the dismissal order as it was passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the complainant who was absent, and restored the complaint file.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal order dated 15-05-2015 in S.T.C.No.457 of 2013 is set aside and the case is restored to file.

V.Manikkam Vs K.Natarajan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 16-10-2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. SELVAM

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2015

¶6

V.Manikkam (aged 73 years)

¶7

..Appellant/Complainant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

K.Natarajan ...Respondent/Accused

¶10

Criminal appeal under Section 378(2)(b), Cr.P.C., against the order dated 15-05-2015 in S.T.C.No.457/2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali and pray to set aside the order of acquittal.

¶11

For appellant : Mr. A. Muthukumar For respondent : No appearance

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

This criminal appeal has been directed against the dismissal order dated 15-05-2015 passed in S.T.C.No.457 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali. The appellant herein as complainant has filed the complaint in question under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole accused. On 1505-2015, both the complainant and the accused are not present. Under the said circumstances, the Court-below has dismissed the complaint under Section 256, Cr.P.C. Against the order of dismissal, the present criminal appeal has been filed.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not made his appearance. Under the said circumstances, the present criminal appeal is disposed of on the basis of the contentions put forth on the side of the appellant.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that only on 15-05-2015 both the complainant and the accused are absent and the Court-below without giving sufficient opportunity to the complainant has erroneously dismissed, S.T.C.No.457 of 2015 and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the Court-below is liable to be set aside.

¶16

It is seen from the records that on 15-05-2015, both the complainant and accused are absent in S.T.C.No.457 of 2013

¶17

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

¶18

and by way of invoking powers conferred under Section 256, Cr.P.C., the Court-below has dismissed the complaint.

¶19

Considering the fact that sufficient opportunity must be given to the complainant, this Court is of the view to set aside the dismissal order dated 15-05-2015 passed in S.T.C.No.457 of 2013.

¶20

In fine, this criminal appeal is allowed. The dismissal order dated 15-05-2015 passed in S.T.C.No.457 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali is set aside and S.T.C.No.457 of 2013 is ordered to be restored to file.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Sirkali.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Sirkali
+1 cc Mr.A.Muthukumar,Advocate(sr.57371)
Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2015
GK(co)
cp 28/10/2015

¶22

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

V.Manikkam v. K.Natarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Manikkam v. K.Natarajan

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

Sekar, S/O.Chellamuthu, Vs the State Rep.by the Circle

M.Geetha, S/O.M.Mohan, 45/2 B, Vs the State Rep by Its the

M.Mohan S/O.R.Manickam, Vs the Stte Rep.by Its the Deputy

Philip Mathew Vs State of Tamil Nadu

L S Abhinesha Babu Vs the Inspector of Police

State Rep.by Vs R.Govindasamy