High CourtsSingle Bench(2003) 08 MAD CK 0007

K.M. Vidya Sagar vs Renu Jayakumar rep. by her Power of Attorney Holder Jeyakumar

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 August 2003

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Kanagaraj, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition No. 26074 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 390 words

V. Kanagaraj, J.—This petition has been filed praying to direct the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, to refund

the sum of Rs. 1,02,250/=, to the petitioner directly, deposited to the credit of C.C.No.2473 of 1999 on the file of the said Court.

2.

Today, when the above matter has been taken up for hearing, in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the

respondent would submit that he has no objection to refund the sum of Rs. 1,02,250/= in favour of the petitioner.

3.

Even though the respondent has no objection to refund the above said amount in favour of the petitioner/accused, still the order requiring the

petitioner to deposit 50% of the cheque borne amount made by this Court dated 7.4.2000 in Crl.M.P. No. 7866 of 1999 is not being one in

consultation with or with the consent of the respondent, but in the interest of justice and for any contingency, it is not desirable to return the amount

in favour of the petitioner, particularly during the pendency of the case registered in C.C. No. 2473 of 1999 on the file of the Court of VII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and it is only proper for a decision to be taken after knowing the result of the case and its

consequences. Any decision taken in the meantime, during the pendency of the case, is susceptible to defeat the very purpose of having required

the petitioner to deposit the said amount. Further, absolutely there is no change of circumstance that could be attributed on the part of the petitioner

for the return of the said amount.

4.

Moreover, on a perusal of the records, it comes to be known that Crl.O.P. No. 16190 of 1999 filed by this petitioner to quash the proceedings

in C.C. No. 2473 of 1999 got dismissed by this Court on 08.12.2000, consequent to which, Crl.M.P. Nos. 7866 and 7867 of 1999 were also

dismissed and hence, as on date, there is no stay of further proceedings in C.C. No. 2473 of 1999. Therefore, the petitioner can file a petition

before the court below seeking the relief sought for in this petition after the delivery of the judgment in the case.

For the discussions held above, this petition becomes liable only to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.