Disposed

Yohalakshmi Sukumaran, v. G.Seenu

Madras HC19 Jun 2017CRL OP/3429/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, via Criminal Original Petitions under Section 482 CrPC, directed the Fast Track Court to order a joint trial for two connected cheque dishonour cases involving the same parties. The Court disposed of the petition to which the respondant did not appear and directed the petitioner to seek dispensation from the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Fast Track Court to order joint trial for C.C.Nos. 2373 and 2375 of 2012. Dismissed prayer for dispensation of personal appearance as it pertains to the Trial Court.

Yohalakshmi Sukumaran, Vs G.Seenu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.3429 and 3430 of 2017 And Crl.M.P.Nos.2482 and 2483 of 2017

¶6

Yohalakshmi Sukumaran ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

G.Seenu ... Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶9

Common Prayer:

¶10

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to order joint trial of in C.C.Nos.2373 and 2375 of 2012 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Manoharan in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶12

For Respondent : No appearance in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶13

The present criminal original petitions have been filed praying to order joint trial of C.C.Nos.2373 and 2375 of 2012 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶14

2.Despite name printed in the cause list and several opportunities given to the respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶15

3.The petition is related to a proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The limited scope of the petition is seeking a direction to the Trial Court to have a joint trial, since both the petitioner and the respondent are one and the same.

¶16

4.It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the C.C.Nos.2373 and 2375 of 2012 are now pending before the Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai.

¶17

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

¶18

5.Under these circumstances, the C.C.Nos.2373 and 2375 of 2012 said to be pending on the file of the Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai, is hereby directed to have a joint trial and complete the same, as expeditiously as possible, after providing due opportunity to the defacto complainant as well as the accused, in accordance with law.

¶19

6.The petitioner seeks dispensation of personal appearance in C.C.Nos.2373 and 2375 of 2012. Such a prayer cannot be entertained by this Court, as the same has to be placed before the Trial Court for consideration. Hence, the petitioner is directed to file necessary application for dispensation of personal appearance before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VIII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To

¶21

The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶22

The Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai.

¶23

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.B.Manoharan, Advocate in sr.no.43002

¶25

Crl.O.P.Nos.3429 and 3430 of 2017 And Crl.M.P.Nos.2482 and 2483 of 2017

¶26

SKS(CO) NR 03/07/2017

¶27

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

Yohalakshmi Sukumaran, v. G.Seenu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yohalakshmi Sukumaran, v. G.Seenu

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

Kanniammal @ Balamani Vs Superintendent of Police

Latchumaiah (M/52) Vs State Represented by

Nagaraja Reddy (M/59), Vs the Director General

M.Megala, Aged 25 Years, Vs the Asst. Commissioner of

Sakunthala, Aged 68 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Deepan Chakravarthi, Vs the State Rep. by Its