In an appeal against the dismissal of a private complaint for insufficient funds cheque dishonour due to complainant's default, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to restore the file for proceedings.
Order of dismissal set aside; complaint restored to file for proceedings; parties to appear within fifteen days.
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(MD)No.857 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.A(MD)No.857 of 2024
Pa.E.Kannan
... Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1.S.Subbulakshmi ... Respondent/Accused
2.Senior Superintendent of Post Officer, Madurai Division, Madurai – 625 002.
... 2nd Respondent
(R2 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 05.04.2024 in Crl.M.P.(MD).No. 972 of 2024 in Crl.A.(MD).No.SR2854 of 2024)
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records and to set aside the Judgment passed in S.T.C.No.995 of 2023, dated 08.09.2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.
For appellant : Mr.R.Mathiyalagan
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.S.Gokulraj for R1 Mr.K.Govindarajan for R2 Deputy Solicitor General of India
Crl.A(MD)No.857 of 2024
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2.The facts in brief:
The private complaint was filed by the appellant herein against the respondent under Section 200 Cr.P.C., stating that the respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 15.02.2022, for his routine family expenses. To discharge the same he issued a cheque dated 15.03.2022. It was presented for payment through the banker of the complainant, which came to be returned due to insufficient funds. Therefore, after completing the statutory formalities, he filed the present complaint against the first respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3.The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summon to the accused. But on the date of hearing namely on 08.09.2023, he the complainant remained absent. There was no representation for the complainant. Similarly accused was also absent. Petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. was filed. Due to the absence of the complainant, complaint was
Crl.A(MD)No.857 of 2024
dismissed for non prosecution. Against which, this appeal is preferred by the appellant.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on the date of hearing namely on 08.09.2023, he was unable to appear before the trial Court and his counsel also could not appear. On that ground the order was passed by the trial Court. Now he is ready to compensate the respondent for the inconvenience caused to him. The respondent's counsel also ready to accept the same. Accordingly, Rs.1,000/- was ordered to be paid to the respondent. Cost paid. That was also accepted by the respondent. Memo filed. Recorded.
5.In view of the above said, order of dismissal passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the trial Court to restore the complaint on file and proceed in accordance with law. Let the parties appear before the trial Court within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if failed, the trial court shall issue notice to the parties by fixing a particular date for their appearance.
Crl.A(MD)No.857 of 2024
6.With the above said directions, this criminal appeal stands
allowed.
29.10.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TM
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.A(MD)No.857 of 2024
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
Crl.A(MD)No.857 of 2024
29.10.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of dismissal of the private complaint due to complainant's non-appearance should be set aside.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pa. E. Kannan
1. S. Subbulakshmi
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Officer, Madurai Division
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
