A priority petition filed to restore a dismissed Criminal Original Petition (Crl.O.P.) was allowed. The court suo-motu impleaded the de-facto complainant as the second respondent and directed private notice to be issued.
Crl.O.P.No.28550 of 2017 restored; R.Venkatesan impleaded as respondent; notice directed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.M.P.No.16320 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.28550 of 2017
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
This petition is filed to restore the above Criminal Original Petition No.28550 of 2017, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 22.12.2021.
2. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the above petition. Satisfied with the reasons stated therein. Hence, the petition is ordered and Crl.O.P.No.28550 of 2017 is restored to file.
3. It is also found that the de-facto complainant has not made as a party in this case. In view of the same, the de-facto complaint, namely, R.Venkatesan, S/o.Ramachandran Iyyar, No.165, Vembakkam Main Road, Panrutti (Post), Wallajabad Taluk is suo-motu impleaded as second respondent in the above Criminal Original Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to take private notice to the impleaded second respondent/de-facto complainant.
5. Post the Criminal Original Petition on 18.11.2022.
03.11.2022
rsi
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
CRL.M.P.No.16320 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.28550 of 2017
03.11.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the priority petition filed for restoration of a dismissed Criminal Original Petition shall be allowed.
Whether the de-facto complainant should be impleaded as a respondent in the above Criminal Original Petition.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
R.Venkatesan
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
