PALANIAPPAN Vs. T M T NEELAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the complainant before the learned District Munaif / Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, where he presented a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondents / accused which was taken on file in C.C. Nos. 13 of 2006 and 12 of 2006 respectively, which was based upon a cheque delivered by the accused which was dishonoured.

(2.) SINCE the accused was absent before the said Court, NBW was issued on the same day and it was pending. On 12.7.2007, while the complaint was taken up for hearing, the complainant was absent and hence the said Court passed an order as follows :

(3.) THE accused are mother and son. THE entire trial was over after adducing the oral evidence on behalf of both sides. On 5.9.2006, when both the cases were posted for arguments, a petition under Section 317 Cr. P.C. was filed to condone the absence of the accused. THE learned counsel for the accused filed to condone the absence of the accused. THE learned counsel for the accused filed a petition in C.M.P.No. 32 of 2006 expressing the intention of the accused for settlement of the matter before the Lok Adalat and that petition was allowed by the said Court. On 15.9.2006, when the matter was posted before the Lok Adalat for settlement, it appears that since the accused did not co-operate, no settlement could be secured between the parties even after several adjournments. Hence, the failure of settlement was reported tot he Court on 23.2.2007 and the matter was posted on 16.3.2007 before the Court. On that date, the complainant was present and since the accused were absent, NBWs were issued to be executed by 27.3.2007. On 27.3.2007, the Presiding Officer was on leave and on the date of next hearing i. e. on 5.4.2007, the complainant was present and the accused were absent. NBWs were pending. THEreafter the matter was again adjourned to 12.7.2007. On that date, the complaints were dismissed.