Dismissed

Muthuselvam v. M.Kannappan

Madras HC3 Jun 2024CRL OP/11014/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to recall a witness in a cheque dishonour case. The Court upheld the trial court's refusal, noting the case's five-year pendency and the accused's failure to cross-examine the witness despite multiple opportunities.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition and connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed.

Muthuselvam Vs M.Kannappan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.11014 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.11014 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.7529 of 2024

¶7

P.Muthuselvam ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M.Kannappan ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to set aside the order passed in C.M.P.No.153 of 2024 in S.T.C.No.211 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet, dated 18.01.2024.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Vijayakumar

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to recall the complainant in

¶14

the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the trial Court has found that in spite of affording adequate opportunity to the accused to cross examine the witness, he failed to avail that opportunity and the case been pending for more than five years, declined to entertain the petition to recall the witness.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.11014 of 2024

¶18

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since counsel was engaged in other works, witness could not be examined on the given date and if the opportunity is given, witness will be cross examined on that day.

¶19

3. This Court is not convinced with the said representation and request. The case has been taken on file in the year 2019 and it could not be completed in view of the non cooperation of the accused. The impugned order indicates that the case was adjourned to 01.12.2023 on condition that the petitioner should examine the witness on that day. However, on that day the accused did not attend the Court and therefore, the evidence of witness was closed. When the case was adjourned on 11.01.2024 after two opportunities already given to the petitioner, the accused/petitioner did not cross examining the witness present. The complainant who is the witness obviously been dragged to the Court without any effective progress for more than five years. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition.

¶20

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

¶21

2/4

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.11014 of 2024

¶23

4. There is no reason available to interfere the trial Court

¶24

order. Hence this Court confirms the same and dismiss this Criminal Original Petition as devoid of merits. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶25

03.06.2024

¶26

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶27

rpl

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet.

¶30

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

¶31

3/4

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.11014 of 2024

¶33

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶34

rpl

¶35

C rl.O.P.No.11014 of 2024

¶36

03.06.2024

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Muthuselvam v. M.Kannappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthuselvam v. M.Kannappan

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

R. Radha @ Radharamalingam Vs Madhan Raj

G.Seethalakshmi Vs Inspector of Police

Mohamed Sayeed Noor Vs the State Rep by

R.Raghu Vs State Rep

Sasi @ Jagadeesan Vs the State Rep by Its

C.Anusuya Vs a.Venkatachallapathi