Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/113/2014dismissed

D.Saraswathi v. Tmt.Kayalvizhi

2017-08-08Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.08.2017 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.113 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 D.Saraswathi ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

Kayalvizhi ... Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.955 of 2012, dated 14.05.2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai and allow the revision petition.

For Petitioner : Ms.N.Juliet Latha For Respondent : No appearance

ORDER

Challenging the order condoning the delay of 12 days in filing the complaint, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a complaint has been filed with a delay of 12 days stating that the complainant suffering from jaundice and no proof has been enclosed. However, the Court below has mechanically allowed the application. She would further contend that as per the order of the Court below, the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.450/- on or before 28.04.2013 in default, the petition would stand dismissed. The complainant has deposited the said amount only on 24.05.2013 and memo has been filed to that effect and the amount was not paid within the time stipulated by the Court below. Therefore, the Court below ought not to have condoned the delay.

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record carefully. 4.Admittedly, the delay is only 12 days and the reason stated in the petition for condoning such delay was that the complainant was suffering from jaundice and therefore, she could not file complaint in time. Therefore, the Court below after considering the entire materials available on record and exercising its discretion allowed the application and condoned the delay on payment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

of cost. So far as the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order has not been complied with in time is concerned, the order has been passed only on 14.05.2013 and while typing the order, the date was wrongly mentioned as 28.04.2013. Subsequently, the amount has also been paid on 23.05.2013 and a memo was also filed on 24.05.2013 to that effect. Hence, I find no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P & A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai.

2.-Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

SMS JS/MR.KKR/SAR.2/24.08.2017/ 2P-3C Crl.R.C.(MD) No.113 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 08.08.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/