Mary Rubala vs G. Pannirselvam
2024 Latest Caselaw 15050 Mad

Madras High Court

Mary Rubala vs G. Pannirselvam on 2 August, 2024

Author: R. Hemalatha

Bench: R. Hemalatha

                                                                              Crl.A.No.349 of 2014

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 02.08.2024

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

                                                Crl.A.No.349 of 2014

                     Mary Rubala                                               ... Appellant
                                                        Vs.

                     G. Pannirselvam                                          ... Respondent

                     Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of Criminal
                     Procedure Code, against the Judgment and orders passed in
                     S.T.R.No.268/2000, dated 09.11.2011 on the file of the Judicial
                     Magistrate-II, Puducherry.

                                           For Appellant      : Mr.J.Rajkumar Roberts
                                           For Respondent     : No appearance

                                                    JUDGMENT

Challenging the Judgment and orders passed in passed in

S.T.R.No.268/2000, dated 09.11.2011 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate-II, Puducherry, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the

'proposed complainant'.

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

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry, had passed

the following orders in Crl.M.P. No.568/2011 in STR No.268/2000.

"This is a petition filed by the

petitioners/proposed parties to implead the petitioner 2 and

3 as mentioned in the petition in the above said STR

No.268/2000 as complainant Nos.2 and 3.

2. Today the petition was called. Batta is not

paid. Petitioner is called absent. No representation is

made on behalf of him. Despite several chances given batta

is not paid. Hence, this petition is dismissed for default."

Consequently S.T.R. No.268/2000 was also dismissed by observing thus:

"This is a private complaint filed by the

complainant against the accused person under Section 138

r/w Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for

dishonour of cheques bearing Nos.885816 dated 17.09.1999

for Rs.6,25,000/- and 885817 dated 23.10.1999 for

Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Mettupalayam branch,

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

Puducherry.

2. Today the complainant was called.

Complainant died. Steps to bring the L.R. of the deceased

complainant filed and pending in Cr.M.P. No.568/2011 is

dismissed for default today. Hence, the complaint is

dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and the accused is

acquitted."

3. Challenging the orders passed in S.T.R.No.268/2000, dated

09.11.2011, by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry, the

present appeal is filed. Though the appeal is of the year 2014, notice

has not been served on the respondent/accused by the appellant. There

is no representation on behalf of the "proposed complainant". In the

circumstances, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

02.08.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

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

Neutral Citation : Yes / No bga

R. HEMALATHA, J.

bga

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry.

2. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

02.08.2024

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