Allowed

M/S.Pamara Granites, v. Mr.S.Rajaram Mohanraj

Madras HC26 Apr 2018CRL OP(MD)/23136/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition on the limited ground that the petitioners were not heard when the trial court condoned delay for filing a cheque bounce complaint. The original position is restored.

What did the court decide?

The summons and proceedings were quashed, the position restored to the original state, and the complainant allowed to prosecute the condonation application afresh.

M/S.Pamara Granites, Vs Mr.S.Rajaram Mohanraj — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.04.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl. OP (MD)No.23136 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2013

¶7

1.M/s.Pamara Granites

¶8

2.M.Raphael

¶9

3.G.Viswasam ... Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.S.Rajaram Mohanraj

¶12

2.Bense Raj ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition is filed Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in connection with S.T.C.No.539 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District, quash the same as well as the consequent summons as against the petitioners herein as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini For Respondent - 1 : Mr.C.Venkateswaran

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing STC.No.539 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, Trichy District. The first respondent is the complainant. The cheques in question got bounced. But, the complaint was not filed within time. There was a delay. The second respondent herein who was one of the accused and who is no more, appears to have made an endorsement that he has no objection for condonation of delay. Based on the endorsement made by the second respondent herein, the learned Trial Magistrate straightaway allowed the application for condonation of delay. This is objected to by the other accused and they are before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

2.The petitioners' allegation is that the complainant and the

¶18

¶19

second respondent colluded between themselves. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners also endorsed “no objection” and agreed for condonation of delay. Therefore, the impugned proceedings stand quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. It is made clear that this petition is allowed on the limited ground that the petitioners were not heard at the time of condonation of delay. Therefore, in all fairness, the original position must be restored. It is open to the first respondent to prosecute Cr.MP No.473 of 2011 afresh and in accordance with law.

¶20

3.With this liberty, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli.

¶27

1 cc TO Mr.S.Xavier Rajini , Advocate in SR No. 63939 + 1 cc TO Mr.C.Vakeeswaran , Advocate in SR No. 63932

¶28

skm

¶29

AE/SV/SAR3/31.07.2018/2P/4C

¶30

Crl. OP (MD)No.23136 of 2013

¶31

and MP(MD)No.2 of 2013 26.04.2018

¶32

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

M/S.Pamara Granites, v. Mr.S.Rajaram Mohanraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Pamara Granites, v. Mr.S.Rajaram Mohanraj

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

Kannan, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Malathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Kathiravan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Parvathi Vs v.Shyam Sundar

Lieutenant Colonel S.Ganesan Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Duraisamy Vs Eraniyammal