Madras High Court
CRL RC/2131/2026 of D.Anthony Kumar Vs K. Prabakaran on 22 September 2026
CRL RC No. 2131 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL RC No. 2131 of 2026
& CRL MP No. 17764 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012184972026}
D.Anthony Kumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
K. Prabakaran
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 12.06.2026 made in Crl.MP.No.824 of 2025
in unnumbered STC on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.Manokaran
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 order passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 381 days in filing a complaint under Section 138 NI Act.
2. The respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- and when the
CRL RC No. 2131 of 2026
cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured and in spite of statutory notice, the petitioner did not make the payment. The respondent did not file a complaint on time and hence, he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 381 days, stating that he was suffering from illness and he could not instruct his counsel to file the complaint.
3. The learned Magistrate allowed the said petition on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, after finding that the respondent had filed the medical records to show that he was sick.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the affidavit of the respondent is very vague and the learned Magistrate ought not to have accepted the affidavit which has been filed in a casual manner and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. This Court, on a perusal of the affidavit, finds that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in so far as his accusation that the affidavit is bereft of necessary particulars. At the same time, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the medical records filed by the respondent to show that he was suffering from a kidney ailment and he was taking treatment and in fact, he had also filed additional documents to substantiate the said fact. The learned Magistrate had also deprecated the
CRL RC No. 2131 of 2026
attitude of the respondent in filing this belated complaint and the affidavit in a casual manner.
6. This Court finds that there is absolutely no infirmity in the impugned order inasmuch as it takes into consideration the ailments of the respondent. It is well settled that when substantial justice is pitted against procedural lapses, the former should prevail and therefore, the respondent must be given an opportunity to establish his case on merits.
7. Hence, the Revision is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22-09-2026 TSG To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri.
CRL RC No. 2131 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 2131 of 2026 & CRL MP No. 17764 of 2026 22-09-2026