Madras High Court
Manjula vs N.Muralidharakannan on 3 March, 2022
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3688 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3688 of 2019
in
Crl.R.C(MD)SR.No. 22280 of 2018
Manjula ...Petitioner
Vs.
N.Muralidharakannan ...Respondent
PRAYER in Crl.M.P(MD)No.3688 of 2019: Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying this Court to
condone the delay of 39 days in preferring the above Cr.R.C. Against the
order dated 11.01.2018 passed in C.A.No.78 of 2016, on the file of IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3688 of 2019
PRAYER In Crl.R.C.(MD)SR. No.22280 of 2018:This Criminal Revision
Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set
aside the judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed in CA No.78 of 2016 on the file
of Learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai confirming
the Judgment dated 18.07.2016 passedin STC No.554 of 2012 on the file of
Learned Judicial Magistrate(Fast Track Court No.2) Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pon Senthil Kumaran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
ORDER
The petition has been filed to condone the delay of 39 days in
preferring the criminal revision case. The criminal revision case has been
filed as against the judgment passed in C.A.No.78 of 2016, on the file of the
learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, thereby
confirming the order of acquittal passed in S.T.C.No.544 of 2012 on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai.
2.The petitioner is the defacto complainant and the respondent is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3688 of 2019
accused. The petitioner filed a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as against the respondent herein.
However, the trial Court found that the alleged cheque was obtained in the
police station and as such there is no endorsement by the respondent and
acquitted the respondent.
3.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal and the
Appellate Court had also confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.
4.Therefore, the petitioner has no merits in the revision petition.
5.That apart on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone
delay petition, the petitioner did not state any sufficient reason to condone the
delay of 39 days. Since the petitioner has no merits in the criminal revision
petition, this Court is not inclined to allow the condone delay petition.
6.Therefore, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the criminal revision case in Crl.R.C.(MD)SR.No.22280 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3688 of 2019
2018 is rejected in SR stage itself.
03.03.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
lr
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3688 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lr
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3688 of 2019
03.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
