D.Carounagarane vs Sunraj Nadar
2022 Latest Caselaw 9476 Mad

                                                                                    Crl.A.No.359 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 06.06.2022

                                                        CORAM :

                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                                    Crl.A.No.359 of 2022

                D.Carounagarane                                    ... Appellant

                                                          Versus

                Sunraj Nadar                                       ... Respondent

                Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(2)(b) of Criminal Procedure
                Code, to set aside the order, dated 04.12.2021, made in C.C.No.4185 of 2016
                on the file of the learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam Complex,
                Chennai.


                                   For Appellant      : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

                                   For Respondent     : No Appearance

                                                       JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2022 is filed as against the order, dated

04.12.2021, whereby, the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 200 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, complaining an offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed on account of the absence of the

complainant.

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

Crl.A.No.359 of 2022

2. The learned Counsel for the complainant would submit that as a matter

of fact, N.B.W was pending against the accused and under these circumstances,

the complainant was unable to reach Court within time and therefore, the

default. He would submit that default was neither willful nor wanton. As a

matter of fact, the final notice, as mentioned in the impugned order, was not

served on the complainant.

3. Even though notice was ordered, it may be seen from the affidavit of

service, the respondent/accused is evading the notice and even after intimation,

he did not claim the notice and hence, the notice has been returned as

unclaimed and therefore, the service is treated as complete. As a matter of fact,

there was a warrant pending against the respondent before the lower Court.

4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, interest of

justice would be served only if the complainant is given one more opportunity

to prosecute the complainant and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands

allowed on the following terms:-

(i) The order of the learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam

Complex, Chennai in C.C.No.4185 of 2016, dated 04.12.2021 is set aside and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.359 of 2022

C.C.No.4185 of 2016 is restored to the file of the learned Magistrate and the

proceedings to be continued in accordance with law;

(ii) Considering the old nature of the case, the complainant is directed to

co-operate with the Trial Court by being present for all necessary hearings or

being represented by a learned Counsel;

(iii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose off the case on merits in

accordance with law, in any event, not later than six months from the date of

receipt of the copy of this order.

                                                                                          06.06.2022
                Index : yes/no
                Internet     : yes
                Speaking order
                grs




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

                                                    Crl.A.No.359 of 2022

                                  D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,

                                                                   grs




                                               Crl.A.No.359 of 2022




                                                         06.06.2022




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