NATARAJ ALIAS T NATARAJAN Vs. P VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records comprised in C.C. No.1295 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode and to quash the same.

(2.) THOUGH the respondent, had been served and his name shown in the cause title, he is neither appearing in person nor through counsel and hence in his absence the Petition is being taken up for final disposal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Complaint been filed after a delay of 10 days, the complainant should have filed a Petition supported by an affidavit to condone the delay; on such Petition being filed, the learned Magistrate should have issued notice to the accused/petitioner and only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and only after condoning the delay, the Complainant should have been taken on file; since the said procedure has not been followed, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that after quashing the proceedings no liberty could be given to the respondent to file a Petition to condone the delay as it will amount to permitting the complainant/respondent to file a Complaint on a second cause of action. Complainant/respondent to file a Complaint on a second cause of action. In support of his above said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Dr. S. Magalingam vs. A. Ganesan, 2006 (2) CTC 307.