Revision against dismissal of a complaint dismissed for complainant's non-appearance; reasons deemed unsatisfactory and revision dismissed.
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.R.C.No.523 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.523 of 2023
M/s.Innokon Laboratories Private Limited, Represented by its Manager Special Power of Attorney Mr.V.Natarajan, Thiyagaraya Street, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 17. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Represented by its Managing Partner Mr.Manish Plot No.140-141, EPIP Phase-I, Jharmajri, Baddi District, Solan, Himachal Pradesh – 174 103.
Managing Partner of M/s.Life Vision Health Care, Plot No.140-141, EPIP Phase-I, Jharmajri, Baddi District, Solan, Himachal Pradesh – 174 103.
3.Swarbpuri, Partner of M/s.Life Vision Health Care, Plot No.140-141, EPIP Phase-I, Jharmajri, Baddi District, Solan, Himachal Pradesh – 174 103.
Page No.1 of 4
Crl.R.C.No.523 of 2023
Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of dismissal dated 08.12.2022 in C.C.No.4997 of 2019 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and set aside the same.
ORDER
The revision challenges the dismissal of the complaint filed by the petitioner since the complainant was not present and had not taken any steps to proceed further.
2.The revision petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner's power agent was on business travel and therefore, could not appear and that the counsel was held up before a Division bench of this Court for a hearing and therefore the complaint ought not to have dismissed. If the petitioner was away, the counsel ought to have represented the petitioner before the learned Magistrate or should have made alternative arrangements. The reasons stated by the petitioner for non-appearance is
Page No.2 of 4
Crl.R.C.No.523 of 2023
not satisfactory and therefore, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Trial Court does not call for any interference. Even before this Court there was no representation for the petitioner on 14.11.2024, 21.11.2024 and even today (27.11.2024) there is no representation though the matter is listed under the caption 'For dismissal'.
3.However, this Court finds no merits in the above revision. Hence,
the Criminal Revision stands dismissed.
27.11.2024
Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
To
The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
Page No.3 of 4
Crl.R.C.No.523 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
cse
Crl.R.C.No.523 of 2023
27.11.2024
Page No.4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Should the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for non-appearance be interfered with by this Court?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Innokon Laboratories Private Limited
M/s.Life Vision Health Care
Manish
Swarbpuri
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
