Madras High Court
T.Mani vs M.Jayadavid on 2 March, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:02.03.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
CRL.R.C.(MD)No.15 of 2015
T.Mani : Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
M.Jayadavid,
Founder Trustee and Chairman,
Fishermen Welfare Trust,
Govt.Reg.No.750/07,
T.Saweriyarpuram,
10/200, Mani Road,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
: Respondent/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 05.12.2014 passed in
C.C.No.456 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No, Fast
Track Court, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, wherein the complaint filed
by the petitioner herein under Sections 138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments
Act r/w.200 Cr.P.C was dismissed under Section 204(4) Criminal Procedure
Code.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
^For Respondent : No appearance
:ORDER
The petitioner is the private complainant in C.C.No.456 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tuticorin District. It was filed to prosecute the respondent/accused under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. The said complaint was dismissed on 05.12.2014 on the ground that the complainant has not taken any steps to execute the non-bailable warrant by filing process fee and that it has also been pending for more than one year. Hence, it was dismissed under Section 204(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when the case was referred to Lok Adalat, admittedly, bailable warrant is pending against the accused. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the trial Court that the process fee has not been paid is clearly incorrect and would further submit that without looking into the case records, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the petition under Section 204(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and prays for setting aside the order and restoring the complaint to file for adjudication on merits.
3. Though the respondent / accused has been served and his name appears in the cause list, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, either through in person or through a learned counsel.
4. A perusal of the order would disclose that the bailable warrant is pending against the accused from 19.11.2012 and together with the process fee, it was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Thalamuthu Police Station, Tuticorin District, vide endorsement of the learned Judicial Magistrate / Fast Track Court, Tuticorin, on 03.12.2013. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint under Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code that process fee has not been paid, on the face of it, is erroneous and unsustainable. On the sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
5. In the result, this criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2014 made in C.C.No.456 of 2012 and C.C.NO.456 of 2012 is restored to file. The trial Court is directed to expedite the process of execution of bailable warrant against the accused and expedite the case by giving preference.
02.03.2015 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No ssm To The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
ssm Order made in CRL.R.C.(MD)No.15 of 2015 02.03.2015