Allowed

M. Marutha Durai, v. T.P. Palanivel

Madras HC22 Jul 2021CRL A/414/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a trial court order dismissing a cheque bounce complaint for default due to the complainant's absence caused by jaundice, the High Court set aside the acquittal. The Court directed remand to the lower court for fresh consideration after hearing both parties and disposing within four months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration with an order to be disposed of within four months.

M. Marutha Durai, Vs T.P. Palanivel — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.07.2021

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

Crl.Appeal No.414 of 2016

¶6

M.Marutha Durai

¶7

...Appellant/complainant

¶8

¶9

T.P.Palanivelu ... Respondent/accused

¶10

Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur in STC No.958 of 2015 dated 22.07.2015.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.A.P.Sathya Murthy

¶12

For Respondent : No appearance

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur dated 22.07.2015 in STC No.958 of 2014.

¶15

The brief facts of the case is as follows

¶16

The appellant is the complainant. According to the appellant/complainant, he has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent/accused on the ground that when the cheque issued by the respondent/accused in discharge of his liability was presented for encashment, it was returned dishonoured and the same was intimated to the respondent through a legal notice, by giving him fifteen days time for repayment of the cheque amount. However, even after the receipt of the legal notice, the respondent/accused has failed to repay the amount. Therefore, the appellant/complainant has preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same was numbered as STC No.958 of 2014 and sworn statement was taken from the complainant and summons were also issued and the same was served on the respondent/accused. After receipt of the summons, the respondent/accused appeared before the trial Court and received copies. Statement of the accused was also recorded

¶17

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

¶18

and he denied the charges.

¶19

The case was posted for trial on 22.07.2015. On that date, complainant was unable to appear before the Court as he was suffering from jaundice. Therefore, the case was dismissed for default. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant has preferred the present appeal.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant.

¶21

When the matter was taken up before the trial Court on 22.07.2015, none appeared for the complainant either by himself or through a counsel. Therefore, the following order was passed:-

¶22

“Complainant absent. No representation. Accused present. Complaint is dismissed for default. Accused is acquitted.”

¶23

On a perusal of the record, it appears that when the matter was taken up before the trial Court, the complainant was absent and due to his non-appearance, the complaint was dismissed. However, the complainant submits that his non-appearance before the trial Court is neither wilful nor wanton, but he was suffering from jaundice.

¶24

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared for the respondent/accused. Notice is served on the respondent and respondent's counsel has also entered appearance. When the matter is taken up at 11.00 a.m, none appeared for the respondent and therefore, it was passed over, and when the matter was taken up again at 11.30 a.m, none appeared for the respondent. Even when the matter was taken up on 29.06.2021, there was no representation for the respondent.

¶25

In the present case, the Court below dismissed the case for non-appearance of the complainant. But this Court is of the view that the grievance of the complainant has to be decided after hearing both the parties by letting in evidence.

¶26

Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the judgment passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, in STC No.958 of 2014 and remand the matter to the Court below for fresh consideration.

¶27

The complaint is of the year 2014. Therefore, this Court directs the Court below to dispose of the case in STC No.958 of 2014 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

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

¶29

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur in STC No.958 of 2014 is set aside.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CO-III)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

To:

¶36

The Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur

¶37

Crl.Appeal No.414 of 2016

¶38

PPA(CO) CT(18/08/2021)

¶39

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

M. Marutha Durai, v. T.P. Palanivel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Marutha Durai, v. T.P. Palanivel

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

Bala @ Balasubramaniyan Vs the State Rep by

M/s a.S.Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dinesh Jain

R.Suresh Vs The Superintending Engineer

Mariyappan Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S. Kamatchi Metals, Rep. by Vs M/S. a.R.Die Casts India Pvt.

B.Krishnan, M/39 Vs State Rep by Its