Allowed

Reserve Bank of India v. S.Venkataraman

Madras HC7 Dec 2016CRL RC/1749/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Madras High Court addressed the dismissal of a complaint for default where the petitioner had actively attempted to serve summons on an evading accused. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the lower court to restore the complaint and issue fresh summons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.08.2011 is set aside; the trial Court is directed to restore the complaint and issue fresh summons to the respondent.

Reserve Bank of India Vs S.Venkataraman — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.Nos.1749 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶6

Reserve Bank of India Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

¶7

Rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr.D.R.Kulkarni, Asst. General Mansager. ... Petitioner/Complaianant

¶8

vs S.Venkataraman ...Respondent/Accused 6 Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai in E.O.C.C.No.3 of 2005 and restore the complaint.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.T.Poornam For Respondent : No appearance ***** O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has filed a private complaint against the respondent and 6 others for the offence under Sections 45QA r/w Sections 58-B and 58-C of the Reserve Bank of India Act,1934. Totally, there are seven accused in this case. The respondent is arrayed as A-6 and he was one of the Directors of the company. The petitioner has taken steps to serve summons to all the accused. Except this respondent, all the other accused received summons and they are facing trial. Since the respondent, who has been arrayed as sixth accused was evading the summons, the case was split up against the respondent and the trial is pending against the other accused. So far as the respondent is concerned, the petitioner took several steps to serve summons on the respondent, but he deliberately evading the receipt of the summons. Hence, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 65 of Cr.P.C. seeking for substituted

¶11

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

¶12

service of the summons. When the said petition came up for hearing on 19.08.2011, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.I), returned the petition and dismissed the complaint for default stating that steps not taken even though sufficient opportunity was given.

¶13

It is seen from the records that the petitioner has already taken steps to serve summons since the respondent evading they themselves filed an application seeking substituted service, but the learned trial Judge after returning the above petition dismissed the complaint for default. Since the petitioner has taken sincere steps, the learned trial Judge ought not to have dismissed the complaint for default, stating that no steps were taken.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impunged order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.1, Egmore, Chennai dated 19.08.2011 made in E.O.C.C.No.03 of 2005 is set aside and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.1, Egmore, Chennai is directed to restore the complaint and issue fresh summons to the respondent and proceed in accordance with law.

¶15

With the above observation, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, connected M.P. Is closed.

¶16

To The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.1, Egmore, Chennai.

¶17

rv(co) krd 30/12

¶18

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

Reserve Bank of India v. S.Venkataraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reserve Bank of India v. S.Venkataraman

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

Mrs.Sumithra Vs Mr.G.Karthikeyan

S.Rajendiran, Aged 52 Years Vs Rajesh, S/O.Sriamalu

H.K. Seeni Hussain Gani, Vs the District Registrar

Reserve Bank of India Vs K.M.Sharma

K.S.Moorthy Vs G.Saravanan

Senthil Alias Ramesh Vs the District Magistrate