CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Perivallal vs Rajendran And Krishnan

Madras High Court · Decided on 29 January 1985 · Citation: (1985) LW(Cri) 29

HON’BLE JUDGES
Singaravelu, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal R.C. No. 804 of 1984/ Crl R.P. No. 800 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 359 words

Singaravelu, J.—This is a Revision Petition by the complainant in the case against the order of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate,

Attur, dismissing his complaint u/s 204(4) of the Crl.P.C., for non-payment of batta.

2.

The private complaint was laid by the complainant on 6th August, 1984 and he paid process fee for the Respondents. The case was posted to

17th August, 1984. The accused was not served and therefore, the complainant paid fresh batta on that day for the next hearing of the case, which

was posted to 24th August, 1984. Perhaps on account of short time, the summons was not served on the accused till the adjourned day, viz., 24th

August, 1984 and hence the case was further adjourned for one week to 31st August, 1984. According to the Petitioner/complainant, he could not

pay batta for the third time since he was laid up. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 31st August, 1984 for non-payment of batta.

Hence the petition.

3.

It would appear that the Respondents/accused have filed a counter complaint against the Petitioner herein and that is pending. Therefore, no

prejudice will be caused to the Respondents, if this complaint is also restored and taken on file since both the cases can be tried together and

disposed of.

4.

Even on merits, the complaint has paid batta on two occasions and the hearing was adjourned to short dates, i.e., by one week, during which,

the summons could not be served. Sufficient time should have been given for the service of process and to enable the accused to appear in person

and contest the case. The lower court could have been a bit indulgent and it appears to have dismissed the complaint on the last working day of the

month on 31st August, 1984, perhaps in a hurry for disposal. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein this Court will have to interfere, in the interest of

justice and fair play and the restore C.C No. 143 of 1984 to file. The parties are at liberty to move the Court below for trying the two cases

consecutively by the same court. Petition is allowed.