The High Court of Madras dismissed three criminal appeals filed by an appellant while the respondent had died, holding them abated. A criminal revision filed by the deceased petitioner was also closed due to lack of interest by heirs.
Criminal Appeals Nos.646, 647, 648 of 2015 dismissed as abated; Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2017 closed.
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.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.85 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2017
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 C.Sakthivel .... Appellant in all Crl. Appeals Vs. M.Senthilkumar .... Respondent in all Crl. Appeals Crl.A.No.85 of 2017 M.Senthilkumar .... Petitioner Vs. K.P.Arunachalam .... Respondent Prayer in Crl.A.Nos.646 of 2015: The Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order
-1-
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.85 of 2017
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode in S.T.C.No.173 of 2013 dated 11.04.2014.
Prayer in Crl.A.Nos.647 of 2015: The Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode in S.T.C.No.214 of 2013 dated 11.04.2014.
Prayer in Crl.A.Nos.648 of 2015: The Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode in S.T.C.No.248 of 2013 dated 11.04.2014.
Prayer in Crl.RC.85 of 2017: The Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 05.12.2016 made in C.A.No.1 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal, confirming the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 01.12.2015 made in S.T.C.No.81 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruchengode.
-2-
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.85 of 2017
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015:-
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
Crl.RC.85 of 2017:-
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondent : Mr.C.Munusamy
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
The Criminal Appeal Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 have been
filed against acquittal. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has died and nothing survives for further adjudication in this matter.
appearing for the respondent, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed as having become abated.
-3-
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.85 of 2017
2017 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
said revision has been filed against conviction. Since the revision petitioner has died and only a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed as fine and the said amount has already been paid, he further submits that the legal heirs of the
petitioner are not interested in coming on record to pursue the revision.
19.01.2023
asi
-4-
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.85 of 2017
To
-5-
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.85 of 2017
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
asi
Crl.A.Nos.646, 647 and 648 of 2015 and Crl.R.C.No.85 of 2017
19.01.2023
-6-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal appeals remain maintainable when the respondent has died.
Whether criminal revision remains maintainable when the petitioner has died.
C.Sakthivel
M.Senthilkumar
C.Senthilkumar
K.P.Arunachalam
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
