Madras High Court
M/S.Sangeeta Traders vs M/S.Agk Packers on 29 October, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.625 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.625 of 2012
M/s.Sangeeta Traders
B-10/305, Mahadevan Apartments,
T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet,
Chennai – 600 018.
Represented by its Partner
Mr.Santhosh Kumar Lath ... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1.M/s.AGK Packers,
Represented by its Partner
Kumar Rajan,
4D/2, SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Trichy Road, Pudukkottai.
2.Kumar Rajan,
Partner,
M/s.AGK Packers,
4D/2, SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Trichy Road, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents/Accused
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. praying to set
aside the order of dismissal for default dated 19.10.2011 passed in
C.C.No.275 of 2009 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai and restore the same.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:11 pm )
Crl.A.No.625 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, Senior Counsel
for Mr.J.Venkatesa Perumal
For Respondents :
JUDGMENT
This Court, on 06.10.2025, had passed the following order:
“The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
respondents in C.C.No.275 of 2009 before the learned XVIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai – 15. On receipt of
summons, the respondents/accused appeared. Thereafter failed to
appear and hence NBW issued. The complainant had taken process,
NBW was issued to be executed through the Inspector of Police,
Pudukkottai Police Station for several hearings starting from
05.04.2010, 11.06.2010, 06.09.2010, 10.11.2010, 06.12.2010,
14.10.2011. The NBW could not be executed since the
respondent/accused was successfully evading. In the meanwhile, on
19.10.2011, the case was called, for that hearing alone the petitioner
could not appear before the trial Court in time and also could not
inform his counsel for getting delay. The trial Court on that day
passed an order as follows:
“Complainant continuously absent. Notice affixed in
Court hall. Complainant called absent. Office Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:11 pm )
examined as Court witness. As complainant is continuously
absent and no representation was made on behalf of
complainant, complaint is dismissed u/s.256(1) of Cr.P.C.”
2.According to the appellant, the appellant had been showing
diligence and he had been prosecuting the case, paying process fees,
taking out NBW regularly. Even for the previous hearing date of the
impugned order, i.e., on 14.10.2011 NBW was taken. But trial Court
not given sufficient opportunity and finding that the case is pending
at the stage of NBW ought to have adjourned the case but dismissed
the same, against which, the appellant preferred the appeal. Initially,
the appeal was filed before this Court, later transferred to the
Sessions Court thereafter now it has been re-transferred to this
Court. Hence, the case is kept pending from the year 2011 without
any progress.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
respondent is facing two other cases apart from this case and in that
two cases he settled the amount. On instructions, the learned
counsel submitted that the respondent has got all the means to pay,
still he is residing at the same address and doing business.
4.In view of the above, this Court directs the appellant to take
private notice to the respondents informing about the pendency of
the above case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:11 pm )
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor through the
jurisdictional police, namely, the Inspector of Police, Pudukottai to
inform the respondents, namely, M/s.AGK Packers, 4D/2, Sipcot
Industrial Complex, Trichy Road, Pudukkottai and his Partner
Kumar Rajan about the pendency of the above appeal before this
Court and ensure his presence before this Court on the next hearing
date without fail.
6.Post the case on 24.10.2025.”
2.In continuation and conjunction to the earlier order passed by this
Court on 06.10.2025, the appellant had taken notice to the
respondents/accused and the same was returned with an endorsement 'Left
without Instruction' and Affidavit of Service dated 24.10.2025 filed
confirming the same. The Inspector of Police, Thirukornam Police Station,
Pudukkottai District had taken steps to serve the notice to the respondents
and it was found that respondent company is not functioning in Plot No.4D/2,
Sipcot Industrial Complex, Trichy Road, Pudukkottai from 17.03.2023. One
M/s.Smart Asia Cartons is functioning in the said Plot.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:11 pm )
3.Steps have been taken to ascertain the whereabouts of the
respondents but unable to be traced. Hence, it would be construed as deemed
service of notice.
4.It is seen that the complaint is dismissed for default and not on
merits. In view of the same, this Court set asides the dismissal order dated
19.10.2011 passed in C.C.No.275 of 2009 and directs the trial Court to take
the complaint on file, proceed with the trial and dispose of the case on merits
and in accordance with law. Since the case is of the year 2009, the trial Court
to give priority for early disposal of the case.
5.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
29.10.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral citation : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:11 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
To
1.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:11 pm )
