Dismissed¶54

H.Sheifullah Khan v. Ravichandran D

Madras HC10 Jan 2025CRL OP/647/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, P. Velmurugan J., 10.01.2025, Crl.O.P.No.647 of 2025. Keywords: Section 88 Cr.P.C. bond with two sureties; Section 138 NI Act private complaint; docket order; lok adalat referral; insistence on surety when liability denied; no deposit of amount directed; R.Sekar & another Vs State 2024 (1) LW (Crl) 509; Section 528 BNSS; Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore; S.T.C.No.1035 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

None; the petitioner/accused is directed to execute the bond as directed by the Magistrate with two sureties. ¶54

H.Sheifullah Khan Vs Ravichandran D — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petitioner/accused is directed to execute the bond as directed by the Magistrate with two sureties.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the docket orders dated 21.09.2023 and 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in S.T.C.No.1035 of 2023, directing the accused to produce sureties and execute a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C., are against law and liable to be set aside, given the contention that when liability is denied the Court cannot insist on security or surety as if the liability is admitted.

¶21

Court's answer

This Court does not find any reason to set aside the docket orders, because the matter was referred to lok adalath at the request of both the parties, and the petitioner/accused neither settled the matter before the lok adalath nor appeared before the Magistrate subsequently.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

A reading of the docket orders shows that the Court below did not direct the petitioner/accused to deposit any amount; the Magistrate only directed him to execute a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. with two sureties in order to ensure his appearance and participation in the proceedings.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. dismissed. Challenge to docket orders dated 21.09.2023 and 31.05.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore in S.T.C.No.1035 of 2023 (a Section 138 NI Act matter), whereby the accused was directed to produce two sureties and to execute a bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. Held: the matter had been referred to lok adalath at the request of both parties; the accused neither settled the matter nor appeared before the Magistrate thereafter; no amount was directed to be deposited, the bond with two sureties being directed only to ensure the accused's appearance and participation in trial; hence no reason to set aside the docket orders. Petition dismissed, connected miscellaneous petition closed, and the petitioner/accused directed to execute the bond with two sureties.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.647 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.01.2025

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.647 of 2025

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2025

¶8

H.Sheifullah Khan ... Petitioner

Vs.

D.Ravichandran

... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to allow the main petition and set aside the docket order dated 21.09.2023 and consequent order dated 31.05.2024 passed in S.T.C.No.1035 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.647 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to allow

¶19

the main petition and set aside the docket order dated 21.09.2023 and consequent order dated 31.05.2024 passed in S.T.C.No.1035 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Cuddalore.

¶20

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said docket

¶21

orders passed by the learned Magistrate is against law. The Magistrate failed to see that when liability is denied, the Court cannot insist on security or surety

¶22

as if the liability is admitted.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials

¶24

available on record.

¶25

Since no adverse order is being passed against the respondent, notice

¶26

to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶27

The docket order of the Magistrate dated 21.09.2023 shows that on

¶28

21.09.2023, the complainant was present and the accused was absent and since 2/7

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.647 of 2025

¶31

the matter was not settled before the lok adalath, directed the petitioner/

¶32

accused to produce two sureties as follows:

¶33

21.09.2023

¶34

Complainant present. Accused absent. No representation. Not settled in lokadalath direct to accused produce 2 sureties call on 01.11.2023.

¶35

Subsequently, on several hearings, the Magistrate has directed the

¶36

accused to furnish sureties. Since the accused had not furnished the sureties, at

¶37

last on 31.05.2024, the Magistrate has passed the following orders directing the

¶38

accused to to execute bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. with two sureties.

¶39

31.05.2024

¶40

Complainant present. Accused present. Counsel for complainant argued that court cannot insist accused in Sec.138 NI Act to execute bond with sureties and Sec.88 of Crpc is not applicable to this case with assurance that the accused with appear on hearing without fail. Though the argument of the counsel for accused is not acceptable, his assurance

¶41

3/7

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.647 of 2025

¶44

in the open court in this case proceedings for appearance of accused in all hearings without fail is accepted. The petition filed by counsel for petitioner to recall the own order of this court is returned. As per the direction of the Ho'ble Madras High Court in "R.Sekar & another Vs State" 2024 (1) LW (Crl) 509, Magistrate shall obtain bond U/s 88 of Crpc from accused in private case (who is not on bail) to ensure his appearance and participation in trial. Hence accused is directed to execute bond U/s 88 of crpc with two sureties on 06.06.2024.

¶45

7. A reading of the docket orders shows that the Court below has not directed the petitioner/accused to deposit any amount and that the Magistrate has only directed to execute bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. with two sureties on

¶46

06.06.2024 in order to ensure the appearance and participation of the petitioner/accused in the proceedings.

¶47

At the initial stage of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused who are appearing before the Magistrate, usually seek time or request to refer the mater to lok adalat to settle

¶48

4/7

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.647 of 2025 the matter. Thereafter, they neither settle the matter nor appear before the trial

¶51

Court and therefore, the cases are pending for years together.

¶52

In this case also, the docket order dated 28.08.2023 shows that at the

¶53

request of both the parties only, the matter was referred to lok adalath. Thereafter, since the petitioner/accused did not settle the matter before the lok adalath and also failed to appear before the Magistrate subsequently, such docket orders have been passed by the Magistrate. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to set aside the docket orders.

¶54