Disposed

P.Loganathan v. D.Dinakaran

Madras HC12 Mar 2024CRL OP/12361/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainants in pending Section 138 cheque cases sought leave to appeal against dismissal of their complaints under Section 204(4) read with Section 256 Cr.P.C. after non-appearance of the accused despite NBW. Finding they had taken steps to execute the warrant, the Court granted leave.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file the criminal appeals against dismissal of the complaints; Registry directed to number the appeals if in order.

P.Loganathan Vs D.Dinakaran — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.12361 and 12362 of 2023 in Crl.A.SR.Nos.11351 and 11352 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O .P.Nos . 12361 and 12362 of 2023 in

¶3

Crl.A . SR.Nos . 11351 and 11352 of 2023

¶4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶5

The petitioners as complainant had filed a private complaint under

¶6

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is pending trial in C.C.Nos.2388 and 2389 of 2015, respectively. The respondent/accused though participated in the trial initially, thereafter from 11.09.2018 and 27.08.2018, respectively, failed to appear before the trial court. Thereafter,

¶7

NBW issued and finding that the petitioners not taken effective steps to execute NBW, further the petitioners/complainant was absent on 19.10.2022, no condonation petition also filed. Finding that the petitioners have not taken any steps for payment of process batta, the trial Court dismissed the complaint under Section 204 (4) r/w 256 Cr.P.C.

¶8

2.This Court, directed the petitioners to take private notice to the

¶9

respondent, which has been returned for the reason 'No such person'. The

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/3

¶11

Crl.O.P.Nos.12361 and 12362 of 2023 in Crl.A.SR.Nos.11351 and 11352 of 2023

¶12

contention of the petitioners is that after issuance of NBW in the year 2018,

¶13

the petitioners had been regularly taking steps for executing NBW, even the

¶14

petitioners approached the jurisdictional police to execute the Non Bailable Warrant. The respondent made himself not available. The respondent is due to the petitioners a huge sum of money and in discharge of the said liability, he issued the cheque. If the complaint is dismissed on technical reasons, the petitioners would be denied of justice. He further submitted that on the previous hearings the petitioners/complainant were present except on 19.10.2022.

¶15

3.Finding reason and force in the submission of the learned counsel

¶16

for petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant leave. Accordingly, leave is granted.

¶17

12.03.2024

¶18

rsi

¶19

Note: Registry is directed to number the appeals, if they are otherwise in order.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/3

¶21

Crl.O.P.Nos.12361 and 12362 of 2023 in Crl.A.SR.Nos.11351 and 11352 of 2023

¶22

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶23

rsi

¶24

Crl.O .P.Nos . 12361 and 12362 of 2023

¶25

in Crl.A . SR.Nos . 11351 and 11352 of 2023

¶26

12.03.2024

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/3

P.Loganathan v. D.Dinakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Loganathan v. D.Dinakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arli Manikanda Vs Inspector of Police

Arli Manikanda Vs Inspector of Police

Prakasam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sharmila Begam Vs State Rep.by

Varatharaj Vs The State rep by

S.Vijayaraghavan Vs the State Rep.by Its