Madras High Court
CRL RC/2233/2024 of GOWTHAMI Vs PONMOZHI on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2233 of 2024 And
Crl.M.P.No.1321 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA012276442024}
Gowthami
W/o. Sugumar,
No.13/1, Kambar Street, N.G.O.Nagar,
Ponneri Town And Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Ponmozhi
W/o. Manigandan,
Kambar Street, N.G.O.Nagar,
Ponneri Town And Taluk,
Tiruvallur District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 18.11.2024 made in C.A.No.9 of 2024, by the Hon’ble IV Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Ponneri confirming the Judgment dated 20.12.2023 in STC.No.87 of 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate Court-I, at Ponneri and thereupon acquit the petitioner/ Accused by allowing the above criminal revision petition.
For Petitioner(s):
No Appearance
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Vigneshbabu
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
There was no representation for the petitioner on 22.06.2026 and on 21.09.2026. Therefore, this case was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on the last hearing.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had served the sentence of imprisonment and the default sentence for non payment of fine amount.
3. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case since he had served the sentence. The revision is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent however would submit that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had served the default sentence, the respondent would be entitled to recover the fine amount.
5. This Court is not inclined to adjudicate this question as there is no representation for the petitioner. It is needless to say that if the respondent is entitled in law to recover the fine amount notwithstanding the fact that the accused had served the sentence and the default sentence, it is open for him to do so.
6. With the above observation, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petition is closed. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No pri To
1. The IV Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Ponneri.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court-I at Ponneri.
SUNDER MOHAN J. pri CRL RC No. 2233 of 2024 And Crl.M.P.No.1321 of 2025 23-09-2026