Sureshkumar v. Revathi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.Nos.16876 and 17932 of 2025 Sureshkumar Proprietor of Mahalskhmi Micro Finance Ltd., S/o. Krishnan, 14, T.V.K.Nagar, Chinnasalem Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

Petitioner in both cases Vs Revathi Respondent in both cases:

COMMON PRAYER The Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records pertaining to the case pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court at Kallakurichi in Crl.M.P.No.1778 of 2024 in C.C.Filing No.1864 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.1779 of 2024 in C.C.Filing 1966 of 2024 and set aside the same since they are devoid of any merits. For Petitioner in both cases:

Mr.A.G.Rajan For Respondent in both cases::

Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi COMMON ORDER The Criminal Revision Cases have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi in two different cases condoning the delay of 21 days and 26 days respectively in filing the complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1/4

2. The gist of the allegations in both the cases is that the petitioner had issued cheques in favour of the respondent for Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively towards discharge of his liability to the respondent; that when the cheques were presented for collection, the same were returned for the reason "insufficient funds"; that in spite of issuing statutory notice, the petitioner did not come forward to make the payment.

3. The learned counsel the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the respondent has not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the explanation offered by the respondent for the delay ought not to have been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, would submit that the delay in both the cases are only 21 days and 26 days respectively; that the delay is not huge; and that the delay was occasioned due to technical failure in the e-court server, and hence the learned Magistrate was justified in condoning the delay.

5. Admittedly the delay in both the cases are 21 and 26 days respectively, though in one case, it is stated that the delay is 21 days instead of 26 days. The 2/4

learned Magistrate in both the cases has held that the respondent has explained the delay sufficiently and that the delay was caused due to a failure in the ecourt server, which cannot be attributed to the respondent. It is well settled that in the cases of this nature where the delay is not huge and the delay has been sufficiently explained, the Courts are bound to condone the delay and adjudicate the dispute on merits. This Court is therefore of the view that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate impugned in these two revisions.

6. Both the Criminal Revision Cases stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15-12-2025 vum Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Kallakurichi 3/4

SUNDER MOHAN J.

vum and Crl.M.P.Nos.16876 and 17932 of 2025 15-12-2025 4/4