Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/138/2015allowed

A.Vinoth v. Neethi Raja Kuber

2017-07-14Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.07.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C(MD)No.138 of 2017 A.Vinoth ... Petitioner/Complainant -VsNeethi Raja Kuber Son of R.T.Manoharan, Proprietor, B.S.C.Builders, 2H/831, S.B.M.Nagar, , North side Second Street, Rajiv Nagar Extension, Tuticorin.

... Respondent/Accused Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records and to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court(Magisterial Level), Thoothukudi passed under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C., on 05.12.2014 in C.C.No.376 of 2012 and to restore the same to file for fresh disposal on merits. For Petitioner : Mr.Antony S.Prabahar For Respondent : No appearance

O R D E R

Dismissing the Petition filed under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C., for not taking the process fee by the Complainant, this revision is filed.

2.The Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent claiming that he has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- and in order to discharge the same, the respondent issued a cheque and when the same was presented for collection, it was returned with an endorsement as 'insufficient fund' thereafter, after complying with the legal formalities, he filed the present complaint. Since the respondentaccused was not present for a hearing before the Court below, a NonBailable Warrant was issued against him, for which, the Petitioner did not pay the process fee. The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said complaint stating that the process fee was not paid. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 3.I have heard the submissions of Mr.Antony S.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and considered the materials available on record.

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that he has already paid the process fee. But the Court below without considering the same, dismissed the complaint filed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate had dismissed 140 cases of similar nature, on a single day, without even verifying whether process fee paid or not. This Court, in another complainant, wherein a similar order was challenged, had allowed the revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.106 of 2016, dated 28.04.2015. 5.Following the same, this Civil Revision Case is allowed and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Thoothukudi passed in C.C.No.376 of 2012, dated 5.12.2014 is set aside and C.C.No.376 of 2012 is restored to file. The trial Court is directed to take the complaint on file and proceed further with the case in accordance with law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate/Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Thoothukudi.

2.-do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi.

VSN JS/GT/SAR.2/1.8.2017/2P-3C Crl.R.C(MD) No.138 of 2015 14.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/