Allowed

D.Sethuram v. C.Krithika

Madras HC28 Nov 2024CRL A/1333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court allowed a criminal appeal against a dismissal of a cheque bounce complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. for non-prosecution. Noting the trial was advanced and the appellant had not complied with court orders, the court directed the lower court to summon the appellant for cross-examination within four weeks to decide the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal allowed and acquittal order set aside; High Court directed lower court to give appellant one more opportunity to appear for cross-examination within four weeks to conclude proceedings

D.Sethuram Vs C.Krithika — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.A.No.1333 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.A.No.1333 of 2024

¶7

D.Sethuraman . .. Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

C.Krithika Proprietrix – Shree Lalitha Oil Company Meenakarai Road, Opp. To Kunjampalayam Pirivu Zaminuthukuli, Pollachi Coimbatore – 642 004. . ..

¶10

. .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. / 419 of BNSS Act praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment of acquittal u/s.256 Cr.P.C. dated 21.08.2024 passed in STC.No.293/2024 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Magisterial Level, Coimbatore for an offence under Section 138 of N.T. Act.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.C.Arunkumar For Respondent : Mr.B.Hari Krishnan

¶13

Page No.1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.A.No.1333 of 2024

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appeal challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for

¶18

non-prosecution under Section 256 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

2.1 The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the respondent had issued a cheque for Rs.21,00,000/- which when presented for collection was returned for the reason “insufficient funds” and inspite of statutory notice, the petitioner did not make any payment.

¶20

2.2 The complaint was filed in the year 2022. On 14.03.2024, the respondent filed CMP No.2129 of 2024 under Section 145 (2) of Negotiable Instruments Act to examine the petitioner/PW1 and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the case was posted for cross examination on 13.05.2024, 05.07.2024 and 21.08.2024. However, the petitioner did not appear on all these three days to subject himself to cross examination and therefore the learned Magistrate dismissed the said case for non-prosecution under Section 256 Cr.P.C.,

¶21

Page No.2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.A.No.1333 of 2024

¶24

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶25

petitioner filed an application on 21.08.2024 stating that his uncle died and there were rituals at his residence and therefore he was unable to appear before the court. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. The learned counsel would further submit that non-appearance of the petitioner is due to an unavoidable circumstance and therefore, one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to prove his case before the Trial Court on merits.

¶26

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra submitted that it is not on one occasion the petitioner was absent and as rightly recorded by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had not shown any interest in the case or had obeyed the order of the court for appearance and therefore no indulgence need to be shown to the petitioner.

¶27

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent

¶28

and perused the records.

¶29

6. From the perusal of the records, it is seen that the trial was in the advanced stage and since the petitioner has not appeared and subjected

¶30

Page No.3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.A.No.1333 of 2024

¶33

himself for cross examination, the impugned order was passed. The petitioner has certainly not obeyed the order of the court directing him to appear before the Trial Court. However, considering the stage of the case, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to establish his case on merits before the Trial Court. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed for the cross examination, which shall be fixed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate may thereafter conclude the proceedings, as expeditiously as possible.

¶34

7. With the above observations, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 21.08.2024 passed in STC.No.293/2024 by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Magisterial Level, Coimbatore .

¶35

28.11.2024

¶36

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

¶37

Page No.4 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

Crl.A.No.1333 of 2024

¶40

To The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court-I, Magisterial Level, Coimbatore

¶41

Page No.5 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.A.No.1333 of 2024

¶44

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶45

rgr

¶46

Crl.A.No.1333 of 2024

¶47

28.11.2024

¶48

Page No.6 of 6

¶49

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

D.Sethuram v. C.Krithika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sethuram v. C.Krithika

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

Jayaraman Vs the State Rep by

M/S.Innokon Laboratories Private Limited Vs M/S. Life Vision Health Care Rep.by

K.Rajamani Vs K.S. Gnanavel

Lakshminarayanan Vs Dr.R.D.Rajamohan

Arun.S Vs Keerthi.T

A.Sulaiman Vs State Rep.by