Dismissed

Senthildevi v. Kanagavalli

Madras HC14 Oct 2020CRL OP/23588/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Cr.O.P. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refusing to quash the DV suit due to insufficient arguments for quashing and non-compliance by petitioners. The Court directed the appointment of an advocate to conduct proceedings in the petitioners' absence.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with directions to file affidavit and bond for advocacy representation without personal appearance.

Senthildevi Vs Kanagavalli — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.10.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.23588 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015

¶6

1.Senthildevi
2.Karthikeyan
3.Manoharan
4.Vasanthi
5.Shanthi .. Petitioners/ AA 3 to 6 & 8
Vs.
Kanagavalli .. Respondent/ Complainant
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to call for the records in D.V.No.9 of 2015 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhurandhagam, Kancheepuram
District, insofar as the petitioners are concerned and quash the
same.
For Petitioners: Mr.S.Sasikumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Murugavel
O R D E R
This case is taken up through video conference.

¶7

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in D.V.No.9 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Madhurandhagam, Kancheepuram District, insofar as the petitioners are concerned and quash the same.

¶8

On 22.09.2015, this Court passed the following order: “Notice of motion returnable in four weeks. Private notice is also permitted. 2. In M.P.No.2 of 2015, dispensed with

¶9

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

¶10

is granted on condition that the petitioners shall ensure that Sakthivel, the husband of the respondent deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/per month to the credit of D.V.A.No.9 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, before 5^th of every English calendar month and on such deposit, the respondent/wife is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶11

3.Post on 20.10.2015.”

¶12

Heard Mr.S.Sasikumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Murugavel, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioners had failed to comply with the order dated 22.09.2015.

¶14

On a reading of the averments in D.V.No.9 of 2015 shows that there are sufficient allegations against the petitioners and therefore, the same cannot be quashed.

¶15

In such view of the matter, this Court issues the following directions:

¶16

i. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on or before 01.12.2020 and execute a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. with two sureties, each;

¶17

ii. The petitioners shall file an affidavit stating that their Advocate will conduct their case in their absence and he will cross-examine the witnesses in their absence and will not adopt any dilatory tactics;

¶18

iii On such affidavit being filed, the Presence of the . petitioners before the trial Court will stand dispensed with for the present;

¶19

iv. The petitioners shall also state in the affidavit that they will not dispute their identity;

¶20

v. Whenever the presence of the petitioners is required, the trial Court may inform the Advocate appointed by them and the petitioners shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.

¶21

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

¶22

In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed with the above directions. Connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nsd
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Madhurandhagam,
Kancheepuram District.
2.Do Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kancheepuram.
+1cc to Mr.A.Murugavel, Advocate, S.R.No. 34428
+1cc to Mr.S.Sasikumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 34385
Crl.O.P.No.23588 of 2015
RSI(CO)
GN(03/11/2020)

¶24

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

Senthildevi v. Kanagavalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthildevi v. Kanagavalli

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.Sundaram, 64 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

C.Manoharan Vs the Inspector of Police

Peranandam Vs Protection Officer

M/S. M. Amit and Sons (Huf) Vs M.M.Syed Sikkander

M.M.Hakim, Aged 46 Years, Vs the Superintendent

C.Ponmalar, F/a 44 Years, Vs Mathaiyan, M/a 49 Years