Madras High Court
CRL RC/736/2026 of Muthukrishnan Vs M.Dharanikumar on 22 September 2026
CRL RC No. 736 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. 736 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010039662026}
Muthukrishnan
S/o.Elumalai,
No.69, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Konerikuppam Village,
Tindivanam Taluk.
...Petitioner/
Complainant
Vs
M.Dharanikumar
S/o Muthukrishnan,
V.K.S.Pandiyan Nagar,
Cheran Street,
Eraiyanur Panchayat,
Tindivanam,
Villupuram.
...Respondent/Accused
Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS praying to set aside the order in C.C.No.137/2017 date 16.05.2025
passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I , Tindivanam.
For Petitioner:
Ms.A.Aarthi
For Respondent:
No appearance
CRL RC No. 736 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 Criminal Revision challenges the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tindivanam, in C.C.No.137 of 2017 dated 16.05.2025, on the ground that the petitioner was absent in spite of several opportunities given to him for his appearance.
2. Ms.A.Aarthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, would submit that the respondent/accused had issued a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and dishonoured the same, and unless the petitioner is permitted to contest the case on merits, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent/accused was continuously absent, hence a Non Bailable Warrant was pending; and that the petitioner had also examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6.
3. Though notice was served on the respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, none has entered appearance for the respondent.
CRL RC No. 736 of 2026
Hence, this Court appointed Mr.D.Akash Kumar, as legal aid counsel for the respondent. There is no representation for the said legal aid counsel as well.
4. Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to establish his case on merits. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order on the condition that the petitioner shall be present on all hearings before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tindivanam.
5. It is seen that the respondent/accused had acknowledged the receipt of the notice sent by this Court and yet failed to appear. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, may take effective steps to ensure that the Non Bailable Warrant is executed and the respondent/accused is secured.
6. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk
CRL RC No. 736 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk To The Judicial Magistrate No.I , Tindivanam. CRL RC No. 736 of 2026 22-09-2026