Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
M.Balaganesan vs P.Antony Amalraj cites

V.K.Bhat vs G.Ravi Kishore on 29 February, 2016

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would rely on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.K.Bhat vs. G.Ravi Kishore and another reported in (2016) 13 SCC 243; wherein, the complainant therein challenging the dismissal, filed the revision before the Metropolitan 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1242 of 2024 Sessions Judge and the said revision came to be dismissed on the ground of absence of complainant; that the complainant has filed another revision before the same Metropolitan Sessions Judge, but that time, he allowed the revision and set aside the dismissal order; that when an application was filed before the High Court alleging that the second revision was not maintainable, the High Court has held that the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge was not illegal and that when the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that in the facts of the case, the dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant amounts to acquittal as contemplated in Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure and on that basis, set aside the order.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Anandha Vadivelu vs Kannappan on 7 April, 2011

8.But in the case hand, the complaint was not dismissed for default under Section 256 of Cr.P.C., but under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision of this Court in the case of Anandha Vadivelu Vs. Kannappan in Crl.RC.No.476 of 2009, dated 07.04.2011, wherein also a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act came to be dismissed for non payment of process fee and this Court by referring to the decision of Kerala High 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 04:47:43 pm ) Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1242 of 2024 Court in the case of Tom Thomas Vs.E. Adbul Lathief and another reported in 2007 Crl.L.J.1143, has held that the order of dismissal under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C., is not an appealable order and only a revision is maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - R Mala - Full Document
1