Allowed

P.C.Viswanathan, Aged 69 Years v. P.T.Sivasubramaniam

Madras HC7 Nov 2022CRL RC/195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed by complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case disputedly dismissed for default due to warrant pending and petitioner absence despite respondent non-appearance. High Court set aside appeal judgment, quashed dismissal, and remanded for fresh summons without examining merits of default dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; fresh summons to respondent directed; case remanded to trial court for proceedings under Section 138 NI Act.

P.C.Viswanathan, Aged 69 Years Vs P.T.Sivasubramaniam — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.RC.No.195 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.RC.No.195 of 2018

¶7

P.C.Viswanathan . .. Petitioner /complainant

¶8

Versus

¶9

P.T.Sivasubramaniam . .. Respondent/accused

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment dated 31.07.2017

¶11

passed in Crl.A.No.131 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional

¶12

Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode confirming the order passed in CC.No.80 of 2005 dated 11.04.2016 on the

¶13

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode and to allow the above criminal revision petition.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Regunathan For Respondent : No appearance (not ready in notice)

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.RC.No.195 of 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This criminal revision is filed against the judgment dated 31.07.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.131 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode, thereby confirming the judgment passed in CC.No.80 of 2005 dated 11.04.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, thereby dismissed the complaint filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act as against the respondent.

¶20

The petitioner is the complainant and he lodged complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act as against the respondent. After receipt of notice, the respondent did not appear before the trial court. Therefore, the trial court issued bailable warrant and it was pending. At the time of pending the same, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court on so many hearings. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the complaint for default. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the trial court, against which the present criminal revision has

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.RC.No.195 of 2018

¶24

been filed.

¶25

Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was

¶26

served on the respondent, no one is present before this Court on behalf of the respondent in person or through pleader.

¶27

On perusal of records, revealed that the respondent received notice and failed to appear before the trial court. Therefore, the trial court issued bailable warrant and it is pending. At the time of pending bailable warrant, the petitioner was absent before the trial court.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be given one more opportunity to proceed with the complaint. Accordingly, the judgment dated 31.07.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.131 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode confirming the order passed in CC.No.80 of 2005 dated 11.04.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode is set aside. The trial

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.RC.No.195 of 2018

¶32

court is directed to issue fresh summons to the respondent and proceed with

¶33

the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act.

¶34

In the result, this criminal revision stands allowed.

¶35

07.11.2022

¶36

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Crl.RC.No.195 of 2018

¶40

5/6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.RC.No.195 of 2018

¶43

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶44

lok

¶45

To 1.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode

¶46

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode

¶47

Crl.RC.No.195 of 2018

¶48

07.11.2022

¶49

6/6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.C.Viswanathan, Aged 69 Years v. P.T.Sivasubramaniam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.C.Viswanathan, Aged 69 Years v. P.T.Sivasubramaniam

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

R.Ravi, Aged 37 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Murugesan, Aged 56 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

R.Ravi, A/37 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Sampath, M/A.60 Years Vs a.Rikab Chand Jain

Rajamani, Aged 53 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Gopi @ Gopinath, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu