Disposed

R.Mathialagan v. a.S.Ramasamy

Madras HC20 Nov 2018CRL OP/29291/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition filed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court held jurisdiction is limited to calling records, not appreciating evidence. Petitioner directed to raise grounds before trial court. Petitioner exempted from Court appearance except during Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning and final judgment. Trial court directed to conclude proceedings in two months.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of Crl.O.P. with direction to trial court to conclude proceedings in two months and instructions regarding petitioner's appearance schedule.

R.Mathialagan Vs a.S.Ramasamy — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.29291 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 & Crl.M.P.No. 3146 of 2018

¶8

R.Mathialagan ...Petitioner -VsA.S.Ramasamy ...Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.117 of 2013 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa For Respondent : Mr.Dr.A.Thiyagarajan Senior Counsel for S.Annadurai ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call the records in C.C.No.117 of 2013 pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem and quash the same.

¶12

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various grounds before this Court and also relied upon various documents in order to establish that there has been no liability on the part of the petitioner on the date when the cheque was stated to have been issued by the petitioner.

¶13

3.This Court, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has very limited scope to go into the facts of the case. This Court cannot enter into the realm of appreciation of evidence and it is in the exclusive domain of the trial Court. If this Court has to entertain this Crl.O.P., this Court has to necessarily go into the facts of the case and also refer to the relevant documents and that may fall outside the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶14

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

¶15

4.It is left open to the petitioner to raise all these grounds before the Court below and mark all the relevant documents during the course of the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶16

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to consider dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner. The presence of the petitioner is dispense with and he shall be represented by the counsel before the Court below. The petitioner shall be present at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and also at the time of passing the final judgment. On other occasions, the petitioner shall be represented by a counsel and he shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day they are examined in chief and the petitioner shall not question the identity of any witnesses.

¶17

6.The C.C. is of the year of 2013. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Court below, namely Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem, to conclude the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

7.The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with above directions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jen To 1.The Judicial Magistrate III Salem.

¶19

2.do through The Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Salem.

¶20

+1 cc to M/s.R.Syed Mustafa, Advocate Sr.No.79776 +1 cc to M/s.S.S.Annadurai, Advocate Sr.No.79437

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.29291 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 & 2 of 2015 & Crl.M.P.No. 3146 of 2018

¶22

NRI(CO) CSL/04.12.2018

¶23

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

R.Mathialagan v. a.S.Ramasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mathialagan v. a.S.Ramasamy

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

Amaravathi, F/a 39 Years, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Raji, S/o.Duraiswamy Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Jayaraman, M/Aged About Vs K.Ganesan

Anandan Duraisamy, Vs Nithya Periyasamy

M.S.Ashokan, Aged 53 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Palaniyammal, Aged About 54 Vs State by