Dismissed

G.Pasupathy v. M.Thiyagarajan

Madras HC10 Jun 2019CRL OP/3261/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition challenging an order refusing to call upon the complainant to produce documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in a cheque bounce trial. The Court found no illegality in the lower court dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and lack of necessity.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; lower court directed to complete proceedings within two months.

G.Pasupathy Vs M.Thiyagarajan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.06.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3261 of 2016 in

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.1697 of 2016

¶7

G.Pasupathy .. Petitioner

¶8

M.Thiyagarajan

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of the III Fast Track Court, Saidapet, Chennai - 15, dated 19.01.2016 in M.P.No.5339 of 2015 in C.C.No.5804 of 2006.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.N.Rajavadivelu

¶11

This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the court below, dismissing the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., for a direction to the respondent to produce certain documents.

¶12

The petitioner is facing trial for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, calling upon the complainant to produce certain documents. The Court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the petition on the ground that the copies of most of the documents are available with the petitioner and there is no necessity to call upon the complainant to produce those documents. The Court below also took into consideration the fact that the case is pending from the year 2006 and the petition was filed in the year 2015 only with a view to drag on the proceedings.

¶13

This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶14

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

¶15

In the result this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the court below is directed to complete the proceedings in C.C.No.5804 of 2006, on the file of the III Fast Track Court, Saidapet, Chennai - 15, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar

¶17

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ub
To
1. The III Metropolitan Magistrate,
The III Fast Track Court, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
2. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Alandur, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.No.3261 of 2016
EV(CO)
CSL/02.07.2019

¶18

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

G.Pasupathy v. M.Thiyagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Pasupathy v. M.Thiyagarajan

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

G.Rajesh Vs Smt.S.Vijayakumar

V.Shivakumar Vs State by

Smt.Mohanambal Vs Annadurai

N.Elumalai Vs State Rep. by Its

Ranjith Kumar Vs Indirani

Palanisamy Vs Babu