Madras High Court
A.Dayalan vs Selva on 27 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.576 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.576 of 2019
A.Dayalan .. Petitioner
Vs
Selva .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401
Cr.P.C, to set aside the dismissal order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate -3, Salem in STC.No.887 of 2016 dated 24.08.2018.
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthiah
for Mrs.D.Sujatha
For the Respondent : No Appearance
ORDER
This revision is filed as against the judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-III, Salem in STC.No.887 of 2016 dated 24.08.2018 which reads
as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.576 of 2019
“Complainant absent, no representation. Process not
paid. This case is pending from the year 2016. Today, this
case is posted for payment of process to issue summons to
accused as last chance. Process not paid. Already sufficient
opportunity given. Process not paid. Therefore, this Court is
dismissed this complaint for non-payment of process as per
Section 204(4) of the CrPC.
Pronounced by me in open Court this the 24th day of
August 2018.”
2. Before this Court, in the same address, notice was served in the
CMP for condonation of delay and the respondent / accused entered
appearance through learned counsel also. However, again when notice was
issued in the main criminal revision, repeatedly, the same is returned as
door locked, even though the return cover says intimation delivered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant would submit that
the accused is residing in the same address and in spite of intimation being
delivered, he is refusing to receive the notice. On perusal of the above facts,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.576 of 2019
the service is treated as complete.
4. This is a case, in which the complainant was absent on the date of
hearing and since process fee was also not filed, the Trial Court has
dismissed the complaint for default. However, since the order does not read
that the accused is acquitted, in this case, learned counsel would submit that
the appeal against acquittal was not filed and hence it is filed as a revision.
Be that as it may, learned counsel would submit that the process fee was
paid on the earlier occasion and on the day of hearing unfortunately, the
complainant could not reach the Court in time and therefore, he should be
given an opportunity to prosecute his case on merits.
5. Considering the conduct of the accused before this Court and
considering the above pleadings of the petitioner / complainant, this Court
is of the view that one more opportunity is to be given to the complainant to
take process and to effect the service on the accused and prosecute his case
on merits and accordingly, this revision is allowed on the following terms:
i. The impugned judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate III dated 24.08.2018 in STC.No.887 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.576 of 2019
stands set aside;
ii. STC.No.887 of 2016 stands restored to the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Salem and the next date
of hearing is fixed as 21.07.2022, on which date, the
complainant shall appear before the Trial court without fail
and also take steps by way of filing the process for service
on the accused as may be ordered by the learned Judicial
Magistrate III, Salem without fail and cooperate for the
further hearings of the case.
Index : yes/no 27.06.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
drm
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate -3, Salem.
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.576 of 2019
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
drm
Crl.R.C.No.576 of 2019
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
