Madras High Court

S.Jotheeswari vs K.S.Thiruselvam on 1 April, 2025

                                                                                           Crl.R.C.(MD)No.419 of 2025

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 01.04.2025

                                                             CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

                                               Crl.R.C.(MD)No.419 of 2025
                                                          and
                                               Crl.MP(MD)No.4229 of 2025

                     S.Jotheeswari                                                            ... Petitioner

                                                                  Vs.

                     K.S.Thiruselvam                                                          ... Respondent

                     PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442
                     BNSS, to call for the entire records pertaining to the order passed by the
                     Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai in Crl.M.P.No.1757 of 2024 in
                     C.A.No.52 of 2023 vide order, dated 07.01.2025 and set aside the same
                     and consequently, direct the learned appellate Judge to permit the
                     petitioner to adduce additional evidence.

                                        For Petitioner           : Mr.R.Anand

                                                           ORDER

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed

Crl.M.P.No.1757 of 2024 in C.A.No.52 of 2023 vide order, dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 07:33:39 pm )

07.01.2025 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai,

dismissing the petition filed under Section 432 of BNSS.

2. The respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200

Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and the trial Court has passed the judgment,

dated 09.05.2023, finding the petitioner guilty for the offence under

Section 138 of NI Act and convicted and sentenced her to undergo six

months simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of

Rs.60,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.

Challenging the judgment of conviction, the accused has preferred an

appeal in Crl.A.No.52 of 2023 and was pending on the file of the Fast

Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai. Pending appeal, the petitioner has filed

the above petition seeking orders to adduce additional evidence for

production of copies of Aadhar card of the petitioner and her children.

3. It is seen that the Aadhar card shows that the petitioner was

residing at Chennai and not at the address mentioned by the respondent

in the statutory notice as well as in the complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 07:33:39 pm )

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is residing at Chennai and even the respondent in the

complaint has admitted that he had approached the petitioner at Chennai

and obtained cheques.

5.It is evident from the records that the statutory notice was sent to

the petitioner to the Ramnathapuram address and the same came to be

returned, despite service of intimations, as unclaimed. It is pertinent to

note that after filing of the complaint, the petitioner has entered into

appearance, after service of complaint summons. The learned Appellate

Judge, by considering the admission made by the petitioner in the

evidence that she was owning property at Ramanathapuram, for which,

the statutory notice came to be sent.

6.As rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, it is not the case

of the petitioner that notice was returned as she had left the address or

that she is not having property in the said address.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 07:33:39 pm )

7. Considering the above, the observation of the learned appellate

Judge that the above petition is filed only to drag on the matter cannot be

found fault with. Consequently, this Court concludes that the Criminal

Revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The

learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, is directed

to proceed with the appeal uninfluenced by any of the observation made

by him/her in the impugned order as well as, this Court. Consequently,

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.




                                                                                                  01.04.2025
                     NCC      : Yes / No
                     Index    : Yes / No
                     Internet : Yes / No
                     das









https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 07:33:39 pm )





                                                                           K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

                                                                                                           das


                     To

                     1.The Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai




                                                                                     Order made in

                                                                                               and





                                                                                        Dated: 01.04.2025









https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 08/05/2025 07:33:39 pm )