Ishwarya Lakshmi v. Priya @ Sivaranjani

Madras HC30 Jan 2026CRL MP/24536/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 91 days delay; protest petition; final report; taking of cognizance; framing of charge; Section 528 BNSS Act 2023; Crl.M.P.; criminal revision; Madras High Court; Sunder Mohan J; Ishwarya Lakshmi; Priya @ Sivaranjani; Crime No.9 of 2024; All Women Police Station Neyveli; Kurunjipadi; CMP.No.1083 of 2024; order dated 19.06.2025; liberty to seek appropriate remedy; charges already framed; not an accused in FIR; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Although the petition was at the stage of condonation of delay, in view of the facts of the case (cognizance taken and charges framed), no useful purpose would be served in condoning the delay and hearing the Revision. ¶25

Ishwarya Lakshmi Vs Priya @ Sivaranjani — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.24536 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 30.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.24536 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.Sr.No.101345 of 2025

Ishwarya Lakshmi

Petitioner

Vs.

1.Priya @ Sivaranjani

¶11

2.The State of Tamilnadu rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Neyveli, Cuddalore District, in Crime No.9 of 2024. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act, 2023, to condone the delay of 91 days against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in CMP.No.1083 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kurunjipadi in filing the present Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.R.C.SR.No.101345 of 2025.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondent : Mr.K.Senthilkumar for R1

¶14

Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.M.P.No.24536 of 2025

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The Revision challenges the order allowing the protest petition

¶20

filed by the first respondent herein against the final report filed by the second respondent. The instant Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 91 days in filing the Revision.

¶21

2.The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the pursuant to the order passed in the protest petition, the final report was filed and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, framed charges and posted the matter for trial.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner however, would submit

¶23

that the petitioner had not been accused by the first respondent; that she was not an accused in the FIR; and the learned Magistrate erred in allowing the protest petition filed by the first respondent.

¶24

4.Though the petition is at the stage of condoning the delay, in

¶25

view of the aforesaid facts, no useful purpose would be served in condoning the delay and hearing the Revision, in view of the order that this Court proposes to pass.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.M.P.No.24536 of 2025

¶29

5.It is seen from the records that after the protest petition was

¶30

allowed, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence as against the petitioner as well. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage, since the charges have already been framed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if there is no evidence against the petitioner for framing charges.

¶31