Dismissed

S.Madasamy, v. a.Kalaiselvi

Madras HC6 Jul 2021CRL RC(MD)/215/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order confirming the acquittal of the respondent. The petitioner, unrepresented previously, sought time, but the Court dismissed the petition and directed a warrant against the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed; the learned trial Judge is directed to issue a warrant.

S.Madasamy, Vs a.Kalaiselvi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL.R.C.(MD).No.215 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J CRL.R.C.(MD).No.215 of 2017

¶4

1.S.Madasamy

¶5

2.Velammal

¶6

3.Thangaraj ... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

A.Kalaiselvi ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order in Crl.A.No.120 of 2015 dated 29.09.2016 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli, confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi in M.C.No.15 of 2010 dated 08.04.2015 and set aside the same as illegal.

¶10

For Petitioners : M/s.M.Manimegalai For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order in Crl.A.No.120 of 2015 dated 29.09.2016 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli, confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi in M.C.No.15 of 2010 dated 08.04.2015 and set aside the same as illegal.

¶13

When the case came up for hearing on previous occasion, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the case was directed to be listed under the caption “for dismissal”.

¶14

Today 06.07.2021, when the case is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and sought time. But, this Court is not inclined to grant further more time. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. The learned trial Judge is directed to issue warrant against the respondents.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

// True Copy //

¶17

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶18

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

¶19

1/2

¶20

CRL.R.C.(MD).No.215 of 2017

¶21

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶22

¶23

The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli.

¶24

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.

¶25

CRL.R.C.(MD).No.215 of 2017 06.07.2021

¶26

RK (22.07.2021) 2P 3C

¶27

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

¶28

2/2

S.Madasamy, v. a.Kalaiselvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Madasamy, v. a.Kalaiselvi

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

Ramamoorthy Vs N.Mohamed Hussain

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Eswari Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Amirtham Chellaiah Vs The Director

B. Sharzoo Khan Vs S.Haseena Banu

S. Gopalakrishnan Vs R. Senthilnathan