Dismissed

C.M.Balagopal v. D.Sasikala

Madras HC9 Jul 2026CRL RC/1615/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of two criminal revision petitions filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. The Court dismissed the petitions on merits, finding them infructuous as the underlying criminal cases were finally decided and appeals were already filed.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Revision Cases dismissed on merits; interim orders vacated; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

C.M.Balagopal Vs D.Sasikala — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL RC Nos.1615 & 1668 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

CRL RC Nos. 1615 & 1668 of 2022 and CRL MP Nos.19371 & 19768 of 2022

C.M.Balagopal

..Petitioner(s)

D.Sasikala represented by her Power Agent Mrs.G.KALANATHI

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

COMMON PRAYER – These Criminal Revision Cases are filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the orders passed by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate at Allikulam, Chennai dated 07.09.2022 in Crl.M.P.Nos.2429 & 2430 of 2022 respectively in C.C.Nos.5342 & 5341 of 2016.

¶13

(In both cases)

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Surendran For Respondent(s): Mr.T.G.Ravi Chandran

¶15

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶16

This Court vide order dated 02.07.2026, passed the following order:-

¶17

“Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that these matters were taken up for hearing in the morning and was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner without information to him. He further submitted

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CRL RC Nos.1615 & 1668 of 2022

¶21

that C.C.Nos.5341 & 5342 were already decided by the trial court and against the said orders, the petitioner had already filed Appeals before the competent Court. He further submitted that both the Appeals in Crl.A.Nos.952 & 953 of 2025 have become infructuous.

¶22

2.Accordingly, in view of the submission of the learned

¶23

counsel for the respondent, put up these cases ‘for orders’ on 07.07.2026.”

¶24

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present cases have now become infructuous as the C.C.Nos.5342 & 5341 of 2016 were already decided finally vide judgments and orders dated 11.07.2025 by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore @ Allikulam. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced copy of the said orders, which are taken on record.

¶25

3.The learned counsel further submitted that he is not interested to argue these cases any further, as against those orders in C.C.Nos.5342 & 5341 of 2016, the petitioner has already preferred appeals before the XXI Additional Court at Allikulam, which are also pending for adjudication. Hence, nothing survives in these cases and hence, both the Criminal Revision Cases have become infructuous.

¶26

4.Considering the aforesaid submission and after perusal of the orders dated 11.07.2025 as well as considering the fact that against the said orders

¶27

Page2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

CRL RC Nos.1615 & 1668 of 2022

¶30

dated 11.07.2025, appeals have already been filed at XXI Additional Court at Allikulam, no useful purpose will be served by keeping these cases any further.

¶31

5.Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed on merits.

¶32

The interim order, if any, shall stand vacated automatically. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶33

09-07-2026

¶34

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶35

GSA

¶36

¶37

1.The XX Metropolitan Magistrate Allikulam, Chennai.

¶38

2.The XXI Additional Judge, Allikulam.

¶39

Page3 of 4

¶40

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

¶41

CRL RC Nos.1615 & 1668 of 2022

¶42

SHAMIM AHMED J.

¶43

GSA

¶44

CRL RC Nos. 1615 & 1668 of 2022 and CRL MP Nos.19371 & 19768 of 2022

¶45

09-07-2026

¶46

__________ Page4 of 4

¶47

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

C.M.Balagopal v. D.Sasikala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M.Balagopal v. D.Sasikala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiruchendhuran Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

R.Philomena Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Police

J.Krishnaveni Vs D.Sri Ramulu

S.Fowziya Vs The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police

David Vs T.Nandhini

Murugan @ Murugaesan Vs The State Rep by, Inspector of Police