Allowed

Syed Mohammed Javeed v. K.Venkatesh

Madras HC3 Feb 2023CRL OP/2464/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition seeking leave to file an appeal against a summary acquittal order. The court granted leave because the petitioner, being abroad, could not appear previously, and the trial court had dismissed the complaint for default rather than on merits.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of summary acquittal dated 22.12.2022 in C.C. No.7937 of 2018.

Syed Mohammed Javeed Vs K.Venkatesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P No.2464 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Crl.O.P No.2464 of 2023 in Crl.A.Sr. No.3492 of 2023

¶7

Syed Mohammed Javeed ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

K.Venkatesh ... Respondent

¶10

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code to grant leave to the petitioner / appellant to file this appeal against the order of summary acquittal dated 22.12.2022 in C.C. No.7937 of 2018 on the file of Fast Track Magistrate – II (FTC-II) Allikulam Complex.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Abdullah

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to grant leave to the petitioner / appellant to file the above appeal against the order of summary acquittal dated 22.12.2022 in C.C. No.7937 of 2018 on the file of Fast Track Magistrate – II (FTC-II) Allikulam Complex.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

Crl.O.P No.2464 of 2023

¶18

is the complainant in C.C.No.7937/2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Magistrate – II (FTC-II) Allikulam Complex and he has filed a complaint against the respondent for seeking action for the alleged offence committed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The said petition was dismissed due to non-appearance of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner is employed at United States of America, he was unable to make his personal appearance before the Court and he has filed a petition to permit him to depose evidence through Video Conference under Rules 4 and 7 of the Madras High Court Video Conferencing in Courts Rules, 2020. But the learned trial Judge without even receiving a petition had chosen to dismiss the same.

¶19

3. The learned trial Judge could have received the petition seeking permission to let in evidence through Video Conference and thereafter pass suitable orders. Since the order of dismissal was not on merit but due to default of the complainant, I feel in the interest of justice, leave should be granted to file an appeal.

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P No.2464 of 2023

¶23

4. Accordingly,this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

03.02.2023

Index : Yes/No bkn

To:

Fast Track Magistrate – II (FTC-II) Allikulam Complex.

¶28

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶29

3/4

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P No.2464 of 2023

¶32

R.N.MANJULA, J.,

¶33

bkn

¶34

Crl.O.P No.2464 of 2023 in Crl.A.Sr. No.3492 of 2023

¶35

03.02.2023

¶36

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

¶37

4/4

Syed Mohammed Javeed v. K.Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Mohammed Javeed v. K.Venkatesh

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

Veeraragavan, (Died) Aged 61 Years Vs State Rep. by

Barani Shanmugam Vs State Rep.by

Anthony Francis, 50 Years Vs T.Murugan

Anand Vs State Represented by

S.Killai Ravindran Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Murugesan Vs the State Rep.by Its