Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


V.S.Kumar v. T.S.Perumal Raja - Crl.R.C.(MD).No.117 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 2809 (27 August 2007)


DATED : 27/08/2007



Crl.R.C.(MD).No.117 of 2007

and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007

V.S.Kumar ... Petitioner Vs

T.S.Perumal Raja ... Respondent Prayer

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records and set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam in Crl.M.P.No.8026 of 2006 in S.T.C. No.497 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, dated 03.02.2007.

For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ashokkumar For Respondent ... Mr.A.Sivaji


This Criminal Original Petition is focussed as against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, in Crl.M.P.No.8026 of 2006 in S.T.C. No.497 of 2007, dated 03.02.2007.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The background facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision case would run thus:

The case in S.T.C..No.497 of 2007 emerged based on the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent lodged with the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Since there was a delay in lodging the complaint, Crl.M.P.No.8026 of 2006 was filed to condone the delay of 20 days and it was condoned by the Magistrate. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the condonation of delay the accused focussed this Criminal revision case.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the case was posted for filing counter, without giving due opportunity to the petitioner/accused the learned Magistrate simply allowed the application. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for one more opportunity, so as to enable him to file counter and to get an order on merits.

5. No doubt the petitioner has not availed the opportunity given to him for filing counter. However, in the interest of justice and in view of the fact that in the first hearing itself the petition was ordered, I am of the considered opinion that one more opportunity has to be given to the accused. Hence, the following order is passed:

The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) to the respondent within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereupon the learned Magistrate shall take Crl.M.P.No.8026 of 2006 on file and give an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to file counter within one week and after hearing both sides suitable order shall be passed.

6. With the above observation, the petition is closed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 is closed.



The Judicial Magistrate,



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.