S.Anandhan v. R.Suguna
Case brief
What is this about?
Appellant challenged the dismissal of a private complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. due to complainant's non-appearance. High Court set aside the order, allowing appeal and directing trial court to complete proceedings within six months.
What did the court decide?
Old order set aside; appellant directed to appear; complainant to file proof affidavit; trial court to complete proceedings within six months.
What the court decided
Crl. A. No.695 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A. No.695 of 2022
M/s.K.K.Granitile Marketing Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Gaurav Rajmal Tated S/o.Rajmal Gomchand Tated Aged about 37 years No15/16, Devangapet Street No.2 Near Flower Market Shivan Temple Adjacent Lane Coimbatore - 641 001
Rep. by its Special Power of Attorney Holder Mr.Rajmal Gomchand Tated S/o.Gomchand Tated Aged about 60 years D.No.199-2, Ward No.47 Sukrawarpet, Coimbatore - 641 001
.. Appellant
Vs
1.M/s.N.S.R.Tiles and Granites Rep. by its Proprietor Smt.Sudha W/o.Suresh Kumar No.8/1702E, Thiru Nagar Sadhasivam Avenue P.N.Road, Near Reliance Petrol Bunk Pooluvappatti Post Tiruppur - 641 602
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of dismissal of private complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for non-appearance warrants interference by the appellate court.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s.K.K.Granitile Marketing Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Gaurav Rajmal Tated
- respondent
M/s.N.S.R.Tiles and Granites
- respondent
Smt.Sudha W/o.Suresh Kumar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court