Madras High Court
Kavitha vs Thayammal on 10 February, 2021
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.695 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 10.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.695 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7329 of 2020
Kavitha .. Petitioner
Vs.
Thayammal .. Respondent
Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
r/w. Section 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.1488 of 2020, in S.T.C.No.234 of 2016, dated
09.10.2020on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
(Magistrate Level), Nagercoil and to set aside the same and to allow this
Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar
For Respondent : Mrs.MariyaVinola
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.1488 of 2020, in S.T.C.No.234 of 2016, dated
1/
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.695 of 2020
09.10.2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
(Magistrate Level), Nagercoil.
2.The respondent herein is the complainant, who lodged a complaint
against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.234 of 2016. The revision petitioner filed
a petition in Cr.M.P.No.1488 of 2020 under Section 315 Cr.P.C. That
petition was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
(Magistrate Level), Nagercoil. Against the same, the petitioner preferred
the Criminal Revision.
3.On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner handed
over cheques to the defacto complainant, but, the defacto complainant
misused the cheque leaf and lodged the present complaint and he has filed
another case through his son and one another case through his friend.
When the petitioner want to adduce further evidence, the trial Court
dismissed the petition. The right of the petitioner to prove his case should
not be denied. A judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.43 and 44 of 2018
[N.Saminathan Vs. M.P.Thangavelu], dated 19.12.2020, is cited and prayed
the petition to be allowed.
2/
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.695 of 2020
4.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the revision petitioner
borrowed money from the defacto complainant in the year 2015and the case
was registered in the year 2016. Several opportunities were given to the
petitioner. The evidence on the side of the defacto complainant was already
over. The defacto complainant argued the case before the lower Court. The
case is pending for the arguments of the respondent / revision petitioner
herein. The defacto complainant is a 73 years old lady. The revision
petitioner is dragging on the matter only with a motive to cheat the defacto
complainant. The defacto complainant has to be rendered justice before her
death. Even in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, no reason was elicited
for non-examination of witnesses, till 24.11.2019. No reason for the delay
is mentioned in the affidavit and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
5.It is seen that the revision petitioner has not taken steps to
produce witnesses till 24.11.2019. The case was filed in the year 2016.
Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the revision petitioner, on
24.11.2019 and the same was re-called on 05.02.2020. Though sufficient
opportunity was given to the revision petitioner, she failed to produce
witnesses. Even though the petitioner failed to produce witnesses,
one more opportunity for the petitioner to putforth her case has to be given,
3/
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.695 of 2020
in the interest of justice. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed on
condition that the revision petitioner has to produce the witnesses within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The trial
Court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of the order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
10.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Court (Magistrate Level),
Nagercoil
2.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4/
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.695 of 2020
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.695 of 2020
10.02.2021
5/
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
