Dismissed

V.Flora Jenefar v. v.C.Ravichandran

Madras HC6 Jun 2019CRL OP/3158/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the confirmation of a dismissal of a Section 91 Cr.P.C. petition was filed by a cheque dishonour accused. The court found no illegality in the lower courts' cogent reasons for dismissal and rejected the argument that the petitioner was deprived of a chance to rebut presumptions. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed; the court below was directed to complete proceedings within three months.

V.Flora Jenefar Vs v.C.Ravichandran — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

V.Flora Jenefar ...Petitioner -VsV.C.Ravichandran ...respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the order dated 02.09.2014 passed in C.R.P.No.47 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem confirming the order dated 22.07.2013 passed in C.M.P.No.2254 of 2013 in C.C.No.100 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Salem and set aside the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mani For Respondent : Mr.P.Jagadeesan ORDER

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order passed in C.R.P No.47 of 2013 confirming the order passed in C.M.P.No. 2254 of 2013 wherein the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C was dismissed.

¶11

The petitioner is facing trial before the Court below for an offence under Section 138 of N.I Act. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C and had sought for production of certain documents. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court and the order was confirmed in revision.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the initial burden is upon the petitioner to rebut the presumption, the petitioner who had denied the liability had

¶13

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

¶14

filed the petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C for production of certain documents. By dismissing this petition, the petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to rebut the presumption.

¶15

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the Courts below have given cogent reasons while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had agreed to pay the entire cheque amount and he had also filed a memo before the trial Court and thereafter, went back and is filing one petition after another in order to drag on the proceedings.

¶16

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials placed on record. Both the trial Court and the revision Court have given cogent reasons for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below and it does not require any interference.

¶17

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed and the Court below is directed to complete the
proceedings in C.C.No.100 of 2013 within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar (CJ Conf.)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
uma
To
1. The III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Salem.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem.
+1cc to Mr.P.Mani, Advocate, S.R.No.45497
+1cc to Mr.P.Jagadeesan, Advocate, S.R.No.45605

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.3158 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 RSV(CO) CS/01/07/2019

¶19

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

V.Flora Jenefar v. v.C.Ravichandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Flora Jenefar v. v.C.Ravichandran

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

Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Vs the Director General of

M.Gopi Vs Superintendent of Police

T.Vijaya Prabhu Vs S.Srinivasan

Malliga Vs Arjunan

M.S.Parvatham Vs the Inspector of Police

G. Sekar Vs Smt. Malathi