Dismissed

K.Manokaran v. State Rep by

Madras HC24 Aug 2017CRL RC/613/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. as the aggrieved complainant, holding that the remedy lies by way of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. A liberty was granted to file a fresh application for condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with liberty to move afresh by filing an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay.

K.Manokaran Vs State Rep by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.08.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2011
K.Manokaran
S/o.Kuppusamy ... Petitioner
vs.
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
Poompukar Police Station.
Crime No.25 of 2008.
2.Samiyappan
S/o.Muthukrishnan
3.Kannadasan
S/o.Kunchithapatham
4.Selvam
S/o.Muthaian
5.Natarajan
S/o.Kaliyamurthy
6.Kunchipillai @ Venkataraman
S/o.Govindaraj
7.Tiruvalarselvan
S/o.Muthukrishnan
8.Godandaraman
S/o.Muthukrishnan
9.Moorthi
S/o.Sei @ Uthirapathi

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

¶9

10.Basker
S/o.Muthaian
11.Sivasubramanian
S/o.Ramalingam
12.Senthilkumar
S/o.Gurunathan
13.Velu
S/o.Muthukrishnan
14.Senthilkumar
S/o.Kandasamy ... Respondents
Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. against the
judgment of learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, passed in
S.C.No.110 of 2009 on 09.02.2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vadivel Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Arul
Additional Public Prosecutor [R1]
Mr.D.Veerasekaran [R2 to R13]
Mr.S.S.Jothivani [R14]
*****
O R D E R
Petitioner challenges the judgment of learned District and Sessions Judge,
Nagapattinam, passed in S.C.No.110 of 2009 on 09.02.2011.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public

¶11

Prosecutor for first respondent and learned counsel for respondents.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

Revision petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.25 of 2008

¶15

on the file of first respondent. In the light of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which is in force from 31.12.2009, the petitioner's remedy would be by way of an appeal.

¶16

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with liberty to move afresh by filing an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay, which of course would be dealt with on merits.

¶17

Registry is directed to return the original papers to learned counsel for
petitioner.
24.08.2017
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
gm
To

¶18

1.The District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.

¶19

2.The Inspector of Police, Poompukar Police Station.

¶20

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.T. SELVAM, J

Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2011

¶26

24.08.2017

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Manokaran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Manokaran v. State Rep by

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

Eem Pee Tex Vs Dilip Garments

Arumugham Vs State Rep. by

Krishnan Vs State Rep by

Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Gurusamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Shanmugam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police