Disposed

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

Madras HC8 Nov 2017CRL OP/18213/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an appeal against an order of acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, disposed of the Criminal Original Petition and closed the pending appeal. The court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge to serve notice on the accused and adjudicate the appeal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to send records to the Principal District and Sessions Judge; complainant directed to appear for service of notice on the accused and subsequent appeal to be completed within three m

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.18213 of 2016

¶7

in
Crl.A.No.SR.34399 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.1475 of 2002 dated 14.09.2011.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.N.Lakshmi (Party-in-person)
O R D E R

¶9

Heard N.Lakshmi, Party-in-Person. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as the complainant and the accused respectively.

¶10

The complainant initiated a prosecution in C.C.No.1475 of 2002 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 of acquittal dated 14.09.2011 with a delay of 271 days.

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

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 18.12.2012 and on 09.08.2016, this Court condoned the delay of 271 days in filing the above appeal.

¶14

3. Heard the complainant.

¶15

Court notice has not been served on the accused, however, on

¶16

the order of this Court, the complainant has effected substituted service.

¶17

In view of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in S. Ganapathy vs N. Senthilvel [ (2016) 3 MLJ (Crl) 641 (FB)], the

¶18

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.

¶19

The complainant is directed to appear before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai on 18.12.2017 at 10.30 a.m. 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 accused, the Appeal shall be completed within a period of three months thereafter.

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

With the above directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed

¶23

of. Consequently, Criminal Appeal SR No.34399 of 2012 is closed.

¶24

08-11-2017

¶25

Speaking/Non-Speaking Order

¶26

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

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.N.PRAKASH, J

kal

Crl.O.P.No.18213 of 2016
in
Crl.A.No.SR. 34399 of 2012

¶32

08.11.2017

¶33

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

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