Disposed

Dr.J.Priyanka, Mbbs, Fiog v. S.P.Uthaman

Madras HC11 Dec 2024CRL OP(MD)/18334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the charges framed in a cheque dishonour case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the grounds raised were factual and required evidence appreciation. The Court disposed of the petition and directed the trial court to complete proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete proceedings within six months.

Dr.J.Priyanka, Mbbs, Fiog Vs S.P.Uthaman — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18334 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18334 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.12256 and 15976 of 2022

¶7

Dr.J.Priyanka, MBBS., FIOG ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.P.Uthaman ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the charges framed against the Petitioner in STC No.573 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Fast Track, Madurai and to quash the same as illegal.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthuvijayapandian For Respondent : Mr.M.Pandiyarajan

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings

¶14

initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18334 of 2022

¶18

The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner are all

¶19

factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Court below and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with and she shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, they are examined in Chief. The petitioner shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the final judgement.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18334 of 2022

¶24

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with

¶25

a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in CC No.445 of 2018 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial shall be conducted on a day to day basis in accordance with the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported

¶26

in Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 SC] . If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon the presence of the petitioner and remand him to custody as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH (JT 2001 (4) SC 3191) . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶27

11.12.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Fast Track, Madurai.

¶30

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

¶31

3/4

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18334 of 2022

¶33