Madras High Court
S.Chandrasekaran vs Kavitha on 30 October, 2024
Crl.A(MD)No.654 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.A(MD)No. 654 of 2023
S.Chandrasekaran ... Appellant / Complainant
Vs.
Kavitha ... Respondent / Accused
Prayer : This Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records to set aside the order made in S.T.C.No.1044 of 2022 by the Judicial
Magistrate, Oddanchatram, dated 28.06.2023.
For appellant : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondent : Mr.P.Suresh
Legal Aid Counsel
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed to call for the records to set aside the
order made in S.T.C.No.1044 of 2022 by the Judicial Magistrate,
Oddanchatram, dated 28.06.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The facts in brief is that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/- on 25.03.2022, from the complainant promising to repay the same
within a month. Towards discharge of the liability, the accused issued a
cheque dated 25.04.2022, bearing cheque No.991145, drawn on State Bank of
India, Dindigul. It was presented for payment on the very same day, came to
be returned due to insufficient funds and after completing the statutory
formalities, proper complaint was filed. It was taken cognizance by the trial
Court and summons were issued to the accused. On the date of hearing, the
complainant failed to appear before the trial Court. So it was dismissed for
default under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. Against which, this Criminal Appeal is
preferred.
3. Along with the grounds, the appellant has produced the B-diary
extract of the trial Court which shows that most of the hearings, the
complainant namely the appellant herein remained absent, so also the
accused. For two hearings, there is no representation for the appellant,
therefore, it was dismissed for default by order dated 28.06.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that his absence
before the trial Court is neither willful nor wanton. According to him, it was
informed by his advocate on record that the Presiding Officer was not
available, so it was frequently adjourned. B-diary extract does not indicate
the above said aspect. The complainant ought to have made proper
arrangement to represent him present before this Court.
5. Having failed to appear before the trial Court, it is not proper on
him to blame the learned counsel on record. However, the fact that the
offence alleged is under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, so one
more opportunity may be given to him, ofcourse, on payment of cost to the
respondent herein for the inconvenience caused to him. On that account, Rs.
1000/- was ordered to be paid by the appellant. The cost was also paid
today(30.10.2024).
6. In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The
learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchatram, is directed to restore the case in
S.T.C.No.1044 of 2022, on its file within a period of 15 days from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
receipt of a copy of the order, after sending notice to the parties for their
appearance and dispose of the same at the earliest.
30.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pnn
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchatram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
30.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
