Disposed

C. Ramaiah, v. M/S. Stp Limited Having at No.

Madras HC29 Jun 2017CRL MP/7958/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order denying cross-examination of a prosecutor witness in a cheque dishonour case. The court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs as a condition to allow cross-examination within specified timelines, after which the trial would expedite.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside to afford a chance for cross-examination on condition of a deposit of Rs. 2,00,000 by 07.07.2017.

C. Ramaiah, Vs M/S. Stp Limited Having at No. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.06.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.7958 of 2017

¶7

in Crl.O.P.No.402 of 2017

C. Ramaiah

.. Petitioner

M/s STP Limited, having Office at Nos.55&56, A&B Developed Plots Ambathur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 098 rep by its authorised signatory and Assistant Manager, N. Ramakrishnan

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in MP No.2512 of 2016 in C.C.No.700 of 2011 by the FTC II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai - 3

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G. Muthukumar

¶15

For respondent : Ms. Kanimozhi Mathi

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present petition to set aside the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in MP No.2512 of 2016 in C.C.No.700 of 2011 by the FTC II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai.

¶18

¶19

The petitioner sought to cross examine P.W.1 and filed a petition in M.P.No.2512 of 2016 and the same was declined for the reason that this is

¶20

an attempt to prolong the issue, since opportunities were already granted twice. Hence the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondent opposed granting any opportunity since the matter involves the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- has to be recovered.

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

To give quietus to this issue, the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 passed in M.P.No.2512 of 2016 is set aside only for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine P.W.1 so as to prove the case of the accused, on condition to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two lakhs only) to the complainant on or before 07.07.2017, failing which, it is always open to the trial Court to complete the trial on merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

On production of the acknowledgement of payment of

¶25

¶26

Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only), the petitioner be permitted to cross examine P.W.1, which shall take place on 12.07.2017 and the same shall be completed on the same day itself. On completion of the cross examination, the trial court shall expedite the trial, preferably within six weeks thereafter. With the above direction, the criminal original petition is disposed of. Since the main Criminal Original Petition is disposed of, no order is required in the Crl.M.P.No.7958 of 2017. Accordingly, connected Crl.M.P is closed.

¶27

29-06-2017

¶28

Index:yes/no website:yes/no

¶29

¶30

¶31

FTC II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai

R. MAHADEVAN.J.,

Crl.O.P.No.402 of 2017

¶36

29-06-2017

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

C. Ramaiah, v. M/S. Stp Limited Having at No.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Ramaiah, v. M/S. Stp Limited Having at No.

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

A.Varadhan @ Varadharaj, Vs the Inspector of Police

B.v.L.Ravi, Age 51 Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Rajkumar, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.K.Sivasubramaniam Vs The Assistant Commissioner

S.Madhavan, M/a 42 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

H.Jitendar @ Jithg Vs State Represented by