Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

M.Thangavel Vs R.Balasubramani — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
M.Thangavel Vs R.BalasubramaniM.Thangavel v. R.Balasubramani

Allowed¶4

M.Thangavel v. R.Balasubramani

Madras HC9 Oct 2025CRL MP/16099/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order of the Madras High Court dated 09.10.2025 by M. Nirmal Kumar, J., condoning a 2423-day delay in filing applications to restore criminal revision petitions Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 (Tirupur) earlier dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.10.2018; petitioner M. Thangavel; first respondents R. Balasubramani (Crl.RC.No.224) and M. Balasubramaniam (Crl.RC.No.223); State represented by the Public Prosecutor; main matters listed for hearing on 27.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 2423 days in filing the restoration petitions condoned; Crl.MP.Nos.16099 & 16103 of 2025 allowed; main Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 posted for hearing on 27.10.2025. ¶4

Why is it important?

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, the delay of 2423 days stands condoned and the petitions are allowed. ¶4

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 2423 days in filing the restoration petitions condoned; Crl.MP.Nos.16099 & 16103 of 2025 allowed; main Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 posted for hearing on 27.10.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 2423 days in filing the petitions to restore Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 (dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.10.2018) should be condoned.

Court's answer

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, the delay of 2423 days stands condoned and the petitions are allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The main Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 are directed to be posted for hearing on 27.10.2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay (2423 days) - Crl.MP.Nos.16099 & 16103 of 2025 filed to restore Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013, which stood dismissed for non-prosecution by the Madras High Court on 04.10.2018 - Court satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support, notwithstanding absence of any representation for the respondent on the hearing date - delay condoned and petitions allowed - main revisions posted for hearing on 27.10.2025 (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.).

A

CRL MP NO. 16099 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL MP. Nos. 16099 & 16103 of 2025 in Crl.RC.Nos.224 & 223 of 2013

Crl.MP.No.16099 of 2025 in Crl.RC.No.224 of 2013

M.Thangavel S/o.C.Maruthachalam EllaiThottam, Karadivavi Post, Petitioner Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District.

Vs

1.R.Balasubramani S/o.Ramasamy, No.4, Thirumurugan Nagar, S.S.Nagar, 1^st Street, Kongu Main Road, Tirupur.

2.State represented by Public Prosecutor, District Court Complex, Tirupur. Respondents

Crl.MP.No.16103 of 2025 in Crl.RC.No.223 of 2013

M.Thangavel S/o.C.Maruthachalam EllaiThottam, Karadivavi Post, Petitioner Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District.

1/4

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

CRL MP NO. 16099 OF 2025

1.M.Balasubramaniam S/o.S.Muthusamy, No.13B, Ranganatha Puram, Kongu Main Road, Tirupur.

Vs

2.State represented by Public Prosecutor, District Court Complex, Tirupur.

Respondents

Crl.MP.Nos.16099 and 16103 of 2025 in Crl.RC.Nos.224 and 223 of 2013

For Petitioner: Mr.D.Nellaiappan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

COMMON ORDER

These petitions are filed to condone the delay of 2423 days in filing

the petitions to restore the Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court on 04.10.2018.

Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner.

This Court, by order dated 24.09.2025, recorded the submission of

one Mr.K.Rahul, learned counsel representing Mr.Amardeep, who undertook to

file vakalat on behalf of the first respondent. However, today when the matter

2/4

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

CRL MP NO. 16099 OF 2025

is called there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either in person

or through counsel.

4.Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support

of the petition, the delay stands condoned and the petitions are allowed.

Post the main Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 for hearing on

27.10.2025.

09.10.2025

drl

3/4

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

CRL MP NO. 16099 OF 2025

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

drl

CRL MP. Nos. 16099 & 16103 of 2025 in Crl.RC.Nos.224 & 223 of 2013

09.10.2025

4/4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of 2423 days in filing the petitions to restore Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 (dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.10.2018) should be condoned.¶1
The court held
Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, the delay of 2423 days stands condoned and the petitions are allowed.ratio¶4

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal of Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 for non-prosecution¶1
this Court (High Court of Judicature at Madras) · 04.10.2018
Prior proceeding
These miscellaneous petitions were filed to condone a delay of 2423 days in filing petitions to restore Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013.¶1
Prior proceeding
By order dated 24.09.2025, this Court recorded the submission of Mr.K.Rahul, learned counsel representing Mr.Amardeep, who undertook to file vakalat on behalf of the first respondent.¶3
Prior proceeding
When the matter was called on the hearing date, there was no representation for the respondent, either in person or through counsel.¶3

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
M.Thangavel S/o.C.Maruthachalam¶8
Mr.D.Nellaiappan
respondent
R.Balasubramani S/o.Ramasamy¶10
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
respondent
M.Balasubramaniam S/o.S.Muthusamy¶17
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
respondent
State represented by Public Prosecutor, District Court Complex, Tirupur¶19
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam

Coram

AI extract

M. Nirmal Kumarauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 9 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 21 Aug 2025
Case no.: CRL MP/16099/2025
CNR: HCMA011613052025
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
Disposal: ORDERED
Case type: CRL MP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from M. Nirmal Kumar

R.Suresh Vs State Rep by
8 Oct 2025
Ramesh, Aged 44 Years, Vs State, Represented by
8 Oct 2025
John Samuel Vs State Rep by
8 Oct 2025
Krishnamurthy Vs Sub Inspector of Police
9 Oct 2025
Sridhar Vs the Inspector of Police
9 Oct 2025
G.Sathishkumar Vs P.Saravanan
9 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

M.Thangavel v. R.Balasubramani, CRL MP/16099/2025 (MAD), decided on 9 October 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history4

Dismissal of Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013 for non-prosecutionthis Court (High Court of Judicature at Madras) · 04.10.2018
These miscellaneous petitions were filed to condone a delay of 2423 days in filing petitions to restore Crl.RC.Nos.223 & 224 of 2013.
By order dated 24.09.2025, this Court recorded the submission of Mr.K.Rahul, learned counsel representing Mr.Amardeep, who undertook to file vakalat on behalf of the first respondent.

View full history

Bench / Coram

M. Nirmal Kumar

Parties & counsel