SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 3066

M.VENUGOPAL
V. Kumaravel – Appellant
Versus
B. Muralikrishna – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant: No appearance.
For the Respondent:J. Harikrishna, Advocate.

Judgment

1. The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 23.08.2010 in C.C.No.442 of 2009 (in dismissing the complaint) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Erode.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, on 23.08.2010 in C.C.No.442 of 2009 passed the impugned order in question observing as under -

“The case called on for hearing to-day to which it had been posted. The complainant not being present in person. No petition filed on behalf of the complainant and notice issued to the complainant. No response. Hence, complaint is dismissed. Accused is acquitted u/s.256, Criminal Procedure Code”.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing at 2.55 p.m., there is no representation on the side of the Appellant. Also on 25.07.2014, there was no representation on his side. However, on that day, there was representation on the side of the Respondent and the matter was directed to be listed on 01.08.2014. Furthermore, on 22.08.2014, when the matter was listed, none appeared on behalf of the Appellant and the matter was directed to be listed on 27.08.2014 as first case in final hearing.

4. On 27.08.2014,













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top