Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
K.Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
R.Sabitha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of application due to absence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on parties' absences affecting proceedings. (Para 5) |
| 3. observations on responsible conduct in court. (Para 7) |
| 4. ruling favoring opportunity for cross examination. (Para 8) |
| 5. final order to allow petition with directive. (Para 9) |
ORDER
The present petition has been by the accused in C.C.No.126 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai wherein the petition filed by the accused person under Section 311 of Cr.P.C has been dismissed.
2.The complainant was examined as PW1 on 03.03.2023 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. Thereafter, the accused has not chosen to cross examine the respondent and the petitioner has filed Cr.M.P.No.1316 of 2023 under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall the complainant. The said petition was allowed on 12.07.2023 on payment of cost. The cost was paid. Thereafter, the accused person has not chosen to cross examine the complainant and therefore, again the evidence on the side of the complainant was closed on 19.07.2024.
Thereafter, the present petition in Crl.M.P.No.430 of 2024 has been filed.
3.The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that after pay
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
