Madras High Court
CRL RC/2018/2026 of Sujitha Vs Anandhakumar on 28 September 2026
CRL RC No. 2018 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2018 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010352142026}
Sujitha
W/o Kamalakanthan,
Proprietor of M/s.Sujitha Enterprises,
No.7/42A, Old No.7/203,
Arokiya Madha Street,
Pozhichalur,
Chennai – 600 074.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Anandhakumar
Proprietor of M/s.Anand Agro Foods,
Registered Office,
No.6/68, North Street,
Ottanatham,
Tuticorin - 628 302.
Branch Office
No.37, Lotus Street,
Santhosh Nagar,
Orattur,
Chennai – 600 076.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w.442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the order dated 31.10.2025
made in C.C.No.356 of 2019 passed by the Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Alandur and allow this Criminal Revision.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Sekar
For Respondent(s):
Ms.V.Atchaya
Legal Aid Counsel
CRL RC No. 2018 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent stating that the respondent issued four cheques for a total sum Rs.7,50,000/- and the said cheques when presented for collection were dishonoured for the reason funds insufficient. It is her case that though the petitioner filed process memo on several occasions, the accused could not be secured.
3. It is seen from the impugned order that the case was pending for filing of process memo and the petitioner had not taken effective steps to proceed further and the petitioner was also not present before the learned Magistrate when the case was called. Hence the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint.
4. Since notice sent to the respondent was returned with endorsement ‘refused, return to sender’, this Court considering the refusal as deemed service, appointed Ms.V.Atchaya, as Legal Aid Counsel on 17.08.2026 to argue the case on behalf of the respondent.
CRL RC No. 2018 of 2026
5. Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.
6. It is seen that the case was dismissed due to the absence of the petitioner and for non filing of process memo to execute warrant against the respondent. The respondent has refused the private notice sent by the petitioner. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to prove her case on merits.
7. The impugned order dated 31.10.2025 made in C.C.No.356 of 2019 is set aside and the complaint is restored. The petitioner shall file process memo immediately and take effective steps to serve the respondent.
8. This criminal revision case is allowed. The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court Campus, Chennai, is directed to pay the schedule fees to the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent Ms.V.Atchaya. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri
CRL RC No. 2018 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. pri To
1. The Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level), Alandur. CRL RC No. 2018 of 2026 28-09-2026