Disposed

Thangavel v. Saravanakumar

Madras HC19 Sept 2019CRL OP(MD)/10377/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Inspector of Police, responding to a criminal original petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to execute a bailable warrant issued in a cheque bounce case within six weeks of receiving the court order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to execute the bailable warrant against the 1st respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Thangavel Vs Saravanakumar — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10377 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10377 of 2019

¶4

Thangavel

¶5

...Petitioner/Complainant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.Saravanakumar

¶8

...1^st Respondent/Complainant

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police Reddiarchatram Police Station, Dindigul District

¶10

..2^nd Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd respondent to execute the bailable warrant against the 1^st respondent issued on 12.07.2018 in C.C.No.207 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul within a time frame as fixed by this court

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶13

For R2 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed seeking direction to direct the 2^nd respondent to execute the bailable warrant against the 1^st respondent issued on 12.07.2018 in C.C.No.207 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul within a time frame as fixed by this court

¶16

2.Heard both side.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the defacto complainant and he initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.207 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Pending the said proceedings, on 12.07.2018, bailable warrant was issued as against the first respondent, till date, it is pending on the file of the second respondent. Hence, he filed this petition.

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, issued Bailable Warrant as against the first respondent, which is still https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pending on the file of the second respondent.

¶19

1/2

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10377 of 2019

¶21

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent is directed to execute Bailable Warrant issued against the first respondent in C.C.No.207 of 2018 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

6.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy //

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

Ls To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul 2.The Inspector of Police Reddiarchatram Police Station, Dindigul District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10377 of 2019 19.09.2019 KM/(04.10.2019) 2P 4C

¶27

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

¶28

2/2

Thangavel v. Saravanakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangavel v. Saravanakumar

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

Pandi Maruthayi Vs Geetharamani

Harshitha, Vs the Inspector of Police

Sivakumar Vs Sudhasini

Sam David Vs The inspector of police

Saravanankumar Vs Jeyaseelan

M.Boopal Alagan Vs the Tashsildar