Manickavalli v. Shanmugam

CRL.OP(MD)Nos.23882 and 23883 of 2025 in CRL.A(MD)SR.Nos.25579 and 25580 of 2025 N.MALA.,J.

Crl.O.P(MD)No.23882 of 2025 is filed to grant leave to the Petitioner to file the above Criminal Appeal in Crl.A(MD)SR.NO.25579 of 2025 against the impugned order passed by the Principl District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in Crl.A.No.23 of 2024, dated 17.02.2025 reversing the order of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi made in S.T.C.No.582 of 2018, dated 29.01.2024, whereas, Crl.O.P(MD)No.23883 of 2025 is filed to grant leave to the Petitioner to file the above Criminal Appeal in Crl.A(MD)SR.No.25580 of 2025 against the impugned order passed by the Principl District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in Crl.A.No.24 of 2024, dated 17.2.2025 reversing the order of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi made in S.T.C.No.583 of 2018, dated 29.01.2024.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

1/3

dated 8.4.2025 in the case of M/s.Celestium Financial .vs. A.Gunasekaran etc., held that application for grant of leave is not necessary. The Honourable Supreme Court in Paragraph No.10 of the above citation categorically held as follows: ''10........We hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section

(4) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C..''

4.In view or the aforesaid dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court, though these applications to grant leave are not necessary, are allowed. 5.Registry is directed to number these Criminal Appeals, if they are otherwise in order and list it for admission in the usual course. 05.01.2026 vsn 2/3

N.MALA,J .

vsn ORDER MADE IN CRL.OP(MD)Nos.23882 and 23883 of 2025 in CRL.A(MD)SR.Nos.25579 and 25580 of 2025 05.01.2026 3/3