Dismissed¶25

Mr.N.Thyagarajan v. Mr.v.Ramakrishnan

Madras HC5 Jan 2026CRL RC/2895/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Justice Sunder Mohan; Crl.R.C.No.2895 of 2025; decided 05.01.2026; revision under Section 438 r/w Section 442 BNSS against condonation of delay in filing Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cheque complaint; delay described as 145 days and as 125 days; Crl.M.P.No.4018/2025 in S.T.C.(SR) No.1194/2025; Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court-V Saidapet; substantial justice versus procedural irregularity/technicality; promise to settle cheque amount as reason for delay; revision dismissed with liberty to contest on merits at trial; petitioner N.Thyagarajan; respondent V.Ramakrishnan; advocate T.Easwaradhas.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision was dismissed; the impugned condonation order was not disturbed, and the petitioner was given liberty to raise all points on merits in the trial. ¶25

Mr.N.Thyagarajan Vs Mr.v.Ramakrishnan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Criminal Revision was dismissed; the impugned condonation order was not disturbed, and the petitioner was given liberty to raise all points on merits in the trial.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ought to be set aside. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

This Court found no infirmity in the learned Magistrate's order condoning the delay in filing the Section 138 complaint, and therefore declined to set it aside.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Where substantial justice is pitted against procedural irregularities or technicalities, substantial justice should be preferred; on that basis the condonation of delay was upheld.

¶24

Key takeaways

The Court accepted that the respondent gave reasons for the delay in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his affidavit — that the petitioner had promised to settle the cheque amount and he therefore waited before filing the complaint — as justifying condonation.ratio¶24
All contentions on merits — including the petitioner's pleas that he is not due and liable to pay the cheque amount and that the complaint is an abuse of process — were expressly left open for raising in the trial.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Crl.R.C.No.2895 of 2025, Madras High Court, Justice Sunder Mohan, 05.01.2026) filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 BNSS to set aside the order dated 06.08.2025 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-V, Saidapet, in Crl.M.P.No.4018/2025 in S.T.C.(SR) No.1194/2025, condoning the delay in filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though the Magistrate had allowed condonation without discussing the petitioner's counter, this Court found no infirmity: the respondent's affidavit (paragraphs 11 and 12) explained the delay — the petitioner had promised to settle the cheque amount, so the respondent waited before complaining — and substantial justice prevails over procedural technicalities. The Court noted the delay as 'only 125 days' (the opening paragraph records 145 days). The Revision was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all points, including non-liability and abuse of process, at trial.

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.2895 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.2895 of 2025

¶7

Mr.N.Thyagarajan S/o.Nageshwaran No.1/366, Karthikeyapuram 1^st Street, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Mr.V.Ramakrishnan S/o.P.R.Venkataraman Plot No.69, Door No.5/544, Sathsangam Street, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4018/2025 in S.T.C.(SR) No.1194/2025 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-V, Saidapet, Chennai – 16.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Easwaradhas

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.2895 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate in condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent.

¶19

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate did not consider the counter filed by the petitioner while allowing the condone delay petition filed by the respondent and there is no discussion in the impugned order as to why the petition was allowed.

¶20

3.The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned complaint itself is not maintainable as the petitioner is not due and liable to pay the cheque amount to the respondent and the impugned complaint is an abuse of process of law.

¶21

4.Though the learned Magistrate has simply stated that the reasons stated by the respondent in the petition to condone the delay is satisfactory, this Court finds from the affidavit filed by the respondent in support of his 2/4

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.2895 of 2025 condone delay petition that the respondent has given reasons for the delay in

¶24

paragraphs 11 and 12 of his affidavit. The respondent had stated that the petitioner had promised to settle the cheque amount and hence, he waited to file a complaint. It is well settled that where substantial justice is pitted against procedural irregularities/technicalities, the former should be preferred. The learned Magistrate therefore had decided to condone the delay and adjudicate the case on merits. This Court finds no infirmity in the said order, especially, since the delay is only 125 days.

¶25

5.Hence, the Revision is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all points on merits in the trial.

¶26

05.01.2026

¶27

Tsg Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No

¶28

¶29

The Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-V, Saidapet, Chennai-16.

¶30

3/4

¶31