Allowed

M.Selvamani v. State Rep. by

Madras HC23 Nov 2023CRL MP/18678/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a petition for extension of time to deposit compensation. The accused submitted a demand draft explaining a clerical error in searching court orders online. The Court directed the receipt of the draft and withdrawal of funds by the victim.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; demand draft of Rs. 5,00,000 accepted; victim to withdraw compensation; report filed by 30.11.2023.

M.Selvamani Vs State Rep. by — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.18678 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.721 of 2016

¶2

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP.J.,

¶3

The Appellant/Accused has filed this Petition seeking extension of time to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) directed to be deposited to the credit of S.C.No.54 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

¶4

2.The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Accused submitted that as per the order of this Court dated 27.09.2023 in Crl.A.No.721 of 2016 the amount of Compensation had to be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The order of this Court could not be complied with as the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Accused had inadvertently searched the order in the website of this Court under the caption of “judgment” instead of “daily orders”. However, in order to show his bona fide , he had produced a Demand Draft dated 13.11.2023 bearing No.734089 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) drawn in favour of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore on State Bank of India, Drawee Branch, Cuddalore.

¶5

1/4

¶6

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

¶7

3.Considering the reason stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Accused, the Petition in Crl.M.P.No.18678/2023 is allowed.

¶8

The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Cuddalore, is directed to accept the Demand Draft to be deposited by the Accused towards settlement of the case in terms of the direction issued by this Court as compensation for the victim.

¶9

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is requested to issue direction to the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District to summon the De-facto Complainant /victim so that she can withdraw the compensation amount available in the credit of S.C.No.54 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Cuddalore. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Cuddalore, is directed to permit the Defacto Complainant /victim in S.C.No.54/2013 to withdraw the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) deposited by the Accused/Appellant towards compensation.

¶10

2/4

¶11

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

¶12

The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Cuddalore,

¶13

is directed to send the report regarding the deposit of compensation by the Appellant/Accused and withdrawal of the same by the De-facto Complainant /victim. The report shall reach this Court by way of e-mail on or before 30.11.2023.

¶14

Call on 01.12.2023 “for reporting compliance”.

¶15

23.11.2023

¶16

¶17

Note: Issue Order copy on 24.11.2023

¶18

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

¶19

3/4

¶20

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP.J.,

¶21

¶22

Crl.M.P.No.18678 of 2023

¶23

¶24

Crl.A.No.721 of 2016

¶25

23.11.2023

¶26

4/4

¶27

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

M.Selvamani v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Selvamani v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumarasamy, 60 Years Vs the State Rep.by

Kumar @ Senthil Kumar (38) Vs State Rep.by

Jerald Kinsley Vs Mary Suji

Mohammed Sulthan Vs State by

Swarajyalakshmi Vs Standard Inorganics Pvt.Ltd.

Balu@ Chinnasami Vs G.Sivagnanam