Allowed

Imam Jaffer v. S.Sathyanarayanan

Madras HC19 Mar 2024CRL A/387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant's cheque dishonour complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution by the trial court. The High Court granted special leave, held dismissal was on a technical ground and not on merits, set aside the acquittal order, restored C.C.No.37 of 2018 and allowed the criminal appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.10.2023 in C.C.No.37 of 2018 set aside; complaint restored to Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam.

Imam Jaffer Vs S.Sathyanarayanan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.A.No.387 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.A.No.387 of 2024

Imam Jaffer

... Appellant

Versus

S.Sathyanarayanan

... Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 27.10.2023 made in C.C.No.37 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District and to convict the accused person.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Periaswamy

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 27.10.2023 passed in C.C.No.37 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

¶16

Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.

¶17

2.This Court, by order dated 19.03.2024 in Crl.O.P.No.6395 of 2024

¶18

granted leave and had given reasons for the same, which reads as follows:

¶19

“The petitioner as complainant had filed a private

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1 of 5

¶21

Page No.1 of 5

¶22

Crl.A.No.387 of 2024

¶23

complaint against the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.37 of 2018. The trial Court, by judgment dated 27.10.2023, dismissed the complaint for non prosecution, against which, the present leave petition and appeal.

¶24

2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the trial Court referring to a notice in D.No.1905 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022 finding that neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court, which shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

¶25

3.The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is a small time Potato Merchant. He supplied potatoes to the respondent, who is at Kollam, Kerala on various dates for the total value of Rs.2,22,780/-. The respondent assured that he will repay the amount within a short period. In discharge of his liability, he issued the cheque, which was presented and got dishonoured. The dismissal of the complaint for non prosecution would amount to short circuiting of complaint and real justice would be rendered after full fledged trial.

¶26

4.Finding reason and force in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant leave. Accordingly, leave is granted.”

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 5

¶28

Crl.A.No.387 of 2024

¶29

3.The learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will diligently follow up the case. Further submitted that the petitioner is taking steps to execute the Non Bailable Warrant against the respondent and to conclude the trial without any further delay.

¶30

4.This Court finds that the reason given by the petitioner is reasonable

¶31

and also Non Bailable Warrant is pending against the respondent from the year 2018. The respondent/accused not appeared before the trial Court and the case was dismissed for non prosecution. In view of the same, this Court finds notice to the respondent not required. Accordingly, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶32

5.It is seen that the complaint was dismissed on technical ground for

¶33

non prosecution and not on merits. The substantial justice would be rendered to the petitioner only after full-fledged trial and not by short circuiting, by dismissal of the complaint for non prosecution.

¶34

6.In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 passed in

¶35

C.C.No.37 of 2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam is set

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 5

¶37

Crl.A.No.387 of 2024

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 5

¶39

Crl.A.No.387 of 2024

¶40

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶41

rsi

¶42

aside and the complaint in C.C.No.37 of 2018 is restored on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.

¶43

7.The petitioner is directed to diligently prosecute the case in C.C.No.37 of 2018.

¶44

19.03.2024

¶45

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rsi To

¶46

The Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.

¶47

Crl.A.No.387 of 2024

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 5

Imam Jaffer v. S.Sathyanarayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imam Jaffer v. S.Sathyanarayanan

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

Nagaraj @ Nagarajan Vs State Rep by

Prakash Vs the Station House Officer

Jakir Hussain Vs Stateof Tamilnadu

M/S.Kaikol Fabries Vs M/S.Aarav International

G.Bharathi Vs D.Thiruselvakumar

Imam Jaffer Vs S.Sathyanarayanan