Partly allowed

Mrs. N. Lakshmi, Age 65 Years, v. v. Ramaraj, Age 55 Years

Madras HC8 Nov 2017CRL OP/18212/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Criminal Appeal against an acquittal in a cheque bounce case where service of notice on the accused was not effected. Directing the registry to forward records and the Principal District and Sessions Judge to direct police to serve notice, the Court ordered the appeal to be completed within three months once the accused appeared.

What did the court decide?

Registry to send records to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, within four weeks. The appeal shall be completed within three months after the accused appears following notice served b

Mrs. N. Lakshmi, Age 65 Years, Vs v. Ramaraj, Age 55 Years — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 08.11.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.18212 of 2016
in
Crl.A.No.SR.34413 of 2012
N.Lakshmi .... Petitioner
Vs
V.Ramaraj .... Respondent
Petition filed under Section 378 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code
against the Judgment of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai made in C.C.No.4315 of 2008 dated 14.09.2011.
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Lakshmi (Party-in-person)
O R D E R

¶7

Heard N.Lakshmi, Party-in-Person. For the sake of convenience, the

¶8

petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as the complainant and the

¶9

accused respectively.

¶10

The complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C.No.4315 of 2008

¶11

against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, in which, the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, acquitted the accused by judgment dated 14.09.2011, aggrieved by which, the complainant has preferred the present appeal against the order

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

of acquittal dated 14.09.2011 with a delay of 271 days. The papers were returned to the complainant by the Registry for some compliance and the same was re-presented with a delay of 102 days which was condoned by this Court on 09.08.2016 and on the same day, this Court also condoned the delay of 271 days in filing the above appeal.

¶15

Heard the complainant.
4. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that Court notice has not
been served on the accused.

¶16

In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in S.

¶17

Ganapathy vs N. Senthilvel [ (2016) 3 MLJ (Crl) 641 (FB)], the Registry is directed to send the records relating to this case to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, after taking a photocopy of the records, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The complainant is directed to appear before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai on 18.12.2017 at 10.30 a.m.

¶19

On the appearance of the complainant, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, is directed to take adequate steps to see that the notice is served on the accused through police and on the appearance of the

¶20

accused, the Appeal shall be completed within a period of three months http://www.judis.nic.in thereafter.

¶21

¶22

With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed

¶23

of. Consequently, Criminal Appeal SR No.34413 of 2012 is closed.

¶24

08-11-2017

¶25

Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
Index:yes/no
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2. The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore,
Chennai.

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.N.PRAKASH, J

kal

Crl.O.P.No.18212 of 2016
in
Crl.A.No.SR.34413 of 2012

¶31

08.11.2017

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mrs. N. Lakshmi, Age 65 Years, v. v. Ramaraj, Age 55 Years

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. N. Lakshmi, Age 65 Years, v. v. Ramaraj, Age 55 Years

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

r.t.arasu Vs a.Munusamy

Ponnusamy Vs Packiaraj

N.Arul Gnanam, M/a 33 Years, Vs Subramaniam @ Sundaram

Mrs. N. Lakshmi, Age 65 Years, Vs v. Ramaraj, Age 55 Years

M/S.First Techno Services Pvt. Vs P.v.Achuthan

A.Munusamy Vs R.T.Arasu