Allowed

Muneshwaran v. Sasikala

Madras HC16 Mar 2021CRL MP(MD)/1040/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court condoned a 37-day delay in filing a criminal revision petition. The Court also permitted the first respondent to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner, with the overall revision petition being allowed.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 37 days was condoned; the first respondent was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited, and the revision petition was allowed.

Muneshwaran Vs Sasikala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1040 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI

¶6

Crl MP(MD)No.1040 of 2021 in Crl RC(MD)No.SR1419 of 2021

¶7

MUNESHWARAN ... PETITIONER/REVISION PETTITIONER/

RESPONDENT

1 SASIKALA

2 MINOR. MANODHARSHANI ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS (REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER THE 1^st RESPONDENT)

¶12

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to Condone the delay of 37 days in preferring this Criminal Revision Petition as against the order in M.C No. 38/2019 on the file of the Honourable Family Court, Sivagangai dated 05.11.2019.

¶13

Prayer in Crl RC(MD)No.SR1419 of 2021:

¶14

To call for the entire records concerned to the impugned order in order in M.C.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble Family Court, Sivagangai dated 05.11.2019 and set aside the same as illegal in accordance with law.

¶15

Order : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.R.RAJASELVAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.S.PUGALENDHI, Advocate on behalf of the 1^st Respondent, the Court made the following order:-

¶16

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 37 days in preferring this Criminal Revision as against the order in M.C.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai, dated 05.11.2019.

¶17

2.Both sides present.

¶18

3.Reasons stated in the petition are satisfactory. The respondents have no serious objection in allowing this petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/2

¶20

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1040 of 2021

¶21

On the side of the respondents, it is stated that without prejudice to the case, the respondents may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court.

¶22

5.In view of the above submission, this Court permits the first respondent to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner. With the above observation, this Petition is allowed.

¶23

/ /2021

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶25

¶26

THE JUDGE,

¶27

FAMILY COURT, SIVAGANGAI.

¶28

+1. C.C. to Mr.R.RAJASELVAN, Advocate SR.No.2254

¶29

CRL MP(MD) No.1040 of 2021 in

¶30

Crl RC(MD)No.SR1419 of 2021

¶31

¶32

AE/SMA/SAR-IV (19/03/2021) 2P / 3C

¶33

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

¶34

2/2

Muneshwaran v. Sasikala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneshwaran v. Sasikala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugan Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Srinivasan Vs The Inspector of Police

Durai Vs The Inspector of Police

Seethalakshmi Vs Shankar Dhayalan

Alagarsamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Ponraj Vs Pon Sudalai Raj