Allowed¶18

M.Dhanalakshmi v. M.Pachayappan

Madras HC23 Oct 2025CRL A/193/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Crl.A.No.193 of 2022, decided 23.10.2025 by D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J. (single member). Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by complainant M.Dhanalakshmi v. M.Pachayappan against dismissal for non-prosecution of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint (S.T.C.No.958 of 2011, Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, judgment dated 11.10.2021). Appeal allowed; dismissal judgment set aside; case restored to trial Court; parties to appear 14.11.2025; complainant to prosecute diligently. No precedents cited; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed: the dismissal judgment in S.T.C.No.958 of 2011 dated 11.10.2021 set aside; the complaint restored to the file of the trial Court; complainant and accused directed to appear before the trial Court on 14.11.2025; complainant to conduct the case diligently.

M.Dhanalakshmi Vs M.Pachayappan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 11.10.2021 in S.T.C.No.958 of 2011 dismissing the complainant's Section 138 NI Act complaint for non-prosecution should be set aside so that the parties may contest the case on merits.

¶18

Court's answer

Considering the plea of the complainant's counsel and the complainant's undertaking to diligently pursue the case, the Court held it better to give the parties an opportunity to contest the case on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, in S.T.C.No.958 of 2011 dated 11.10.2021 stands set aside.

¶19

Key takeaways

The case in S.T.C.No.958 of 2011 is restored to the file of the learned trial Court.ratio¶23
The complainant and the accused shall appear before the trial Court on 14.11.2025, and the complainant shall conduct the case diligently.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.) by complainant M.Dhanalakshmi against the judgment dated 11.10.2021 of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur in S.T.C.No.958 of 2011, whereby her private complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M.Pachayappan was dismissed for non-prosecution. Considering the complainant's undertaking to diligently pursue the case, the Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J., sole member) held it better to allow the parties to contest the case on merits than to leave it dismissed for non-prosecution, allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal judgment, restored S.T.C.No.958 of 2011 to the trial Court's file, and directed the complainant and the accused to appear before the trial Court on 14.11.2025 with the complainant to conduct the case diligently.

¶1

Crl.A.No.193 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 23 .10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Crl.A.No.193 of 2022

¶7

M.Dhanalakshmi ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

M.Pachayappan, S/O. Muthusamy, No. 9/1 -102, Subramaniya Nagar, Puduchampalli, Raman Nagar Post, Mettur Dam, Salem District ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the order passed in S.T.C.No. 958 of 2011 dated 11.10.2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Mettur and to allow the above Criminal Appeal and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper and thus render justice.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. R.Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mr.S.Mathivanan (No appearance)

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

Crl.A.No.193 of 2022

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur dated 11.10.2021 made in S.T.C.No.958 of 2011.

¶17

2.By the said judgment the private complaint filed by the appellant herein complaining an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was dismissed for non prosecution. It is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that if one more opportunity is given the complainant will diligently pursue the same and complete the evidence as early as possible.

¶18

3.Considering the plea made by the learned counsel for the complainant and it is better to give an opportunity for the parties to contest the case on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The complainant is also undertaking before the Court to diligently pursue the same. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed on the following terms:-

¶19

i)The judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, in S.T.C.No.958 of 2011 dated 11.10.2021 stands set aside.

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.A.No.193 of 2022

¶23

ii)The case in S.T.C.No.958 of 2011 is restored to the file of the learned trial Court. The complainant and the accused shall appear before the trial Court on 14.11.2025 and the complainant shall conduct the case diligently.

¶24

23.10.2025

¶25

¶26

Neutral citation : Yes/No

¶27

To:The Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Mettur.

¶28

3/4

¶29

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

¶30