In Crl.R.C.No.147 of 2017, the Madras High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition due to the default of the petitioner, who was unrepresented for two hearings.
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed for default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.R.C.No.147 of 2017
1.Vaithiyanathan ...Petitioner/Complainant
Vs
Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the dismissal order passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Nagapattinam in C.C.No.1 of 2014 dated 03.10.2016.
On 09.06.2017, when the Criminal Revision Petition was taken up, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption “For Dismissal” on 16.06.2017. Accordingly, the matter was listed today. Today, when the case is taken up, again, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed for Default. No costs.
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
raja
To
The Sessions Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Nagapattinam.
Crl.R.C.No.147 of 2017
LRS(CO) VR(28/06/2017)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vaithiyanathan
S. Shanthi
S. Divyabharathi
T. Vijayalakshmi
R. Selvam
A. Revathi
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
