← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/17723/2025dismissed with liberty

C.Y.Sathiyanarayana v. P.Chandrsekaran

2025-06-20Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 20.06.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN --- C.Y.Sathiyanarayana Sole Proprietor of ITS Solutions, No.3.B, 3rd Floor, 25, Park Center, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

.. Petitioner Vs.

P.Chandrasekaran, Son of Paramasivam .. Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act, praying to extend the time granted to deposit the compensation amount, vide order dated 09.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.30 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, to extend further period of four weeks.

For petitioner : M/s.J.suresh 1 / 4

ORDER

This petition is filed to extend the time granted to deposit the compensation amount, vide order dated 09.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.30 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, by four weeks.

2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, by order dated 09.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.30 of 2025 in S.T.C.No.11408 of 2023, had directed as follows : "7. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the lower Court alone is hereby suspended till the disposal of the appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-II, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai on or before 23.01.2025. Further, the petitioner shall deposit 15% of the total compensation amount before the Trial Court at the credit of S.T.C. within sixty days from the date of this order".

3. Now, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/accused could not make further payment and the petitioner had 2 / 4

made only part payment before the trial Court, and the Metropolitan Magistrate could not usurp the power of the Sessions Judge and accept the part payment.

4. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 09.01.2025, the petitioner is at liberty to approach only the Principal Sesions Court, Chennai and seek for extension of time.

5. With the above liberty, this petition is dismissed. 20.06.2025 cs To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3. Metropolitan Magistrate, FTC-2, Egmore @ Allikulam, Chennai. 3 / 4

P.VELMURUGAN, J cs 20.06.2025 4 / 4