Dismissed

K.Buvaneswari v. the State Rep.by Its

Madras HC11 Jan 2019CRL RC/74/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging dismissal of petition seeking condonation of 314-day delay in representation. Court found no material wrong in rejecting the petition as the petitioner failed to substantiate the ground of delay with materials; mere assertion of appearing in superior courts was unbelievable. Revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case stood dismissed rejecting the challenge to the order dismissing the petition for condonation of delay.

K.Buvaneswari Vs the State Rep.by Its — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:11.01.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.74 of 2019

¶6

K.Buvaneswari

¶7

rep.by her General Power of Attorney K.Gajalakshmi

... Petitioner

vs.

The State,rep.by

1.The Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram District.

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2848 of 2018, dated 16.10.2018, by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gajalakshmi

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.G.Harihara Arun Soma Sankar Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The above Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.2848 of 2018 in Crime No.29 of 2014, dismissing the petition seeking condonation of delay of 314 days in representation of the protest petition.

¶19

2.According to the learned Judicial Magistrate, no proper reasons were spelt out in the petition seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, mentioned the reason that during the period of delay which was sought to be condoned, she was appearing constantly before the High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it appears that before the Court below, no materials were placed in

¶20

support of the said reason. The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the reason as set forth by the petitioner herein was not supported by any materials, is unbelievable.

¶21

3.This Court finds that no material wrong has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate while dismissing the petition seeking condonation of delay in representation. When the delay is sought to be condoned, it is imperative on the part of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay, to explain the delay in a manner acceptable to law. Merely asserting that she was constantly appearing for a period of 314 days before the High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not appear to be believable and the same does not cut much ice with this Court also. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly rejected the petition and the order passed by her does not call for any interference. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

Msk

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chengalpattu.

¶28

2.The Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram District.

¶29

3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram District.

¶30

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

+1cc to M/S.Gajalakshmi, Advocate Sr.3192

¶32

Crl.R.C.No.74 of 2019

¶33

mg[co] srg 12/02/2019

K.Buvaneswari v. the State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Buvaneswari v. the State Rep.by Its

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

J.Sayad Sameer, Vs a.Riyaz Ahamed

Sivanandam, M/A.55 Years Vs Karpagam, F/A.40 Years

Mr.v.Kulothunga Chozhan, Vs the State Rep by Its

Deena Dayalan Vs the State Rep. by

Alima Banu Vs State Rep by

Boopathi Vs the State Rep. by