Divyashree Vs Gowthamkumar

Divyashree vs Gowthamkumar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 18, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1432722

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1432722
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 18, 2026
Case Number: CRL RC/669/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Divyashree

Respondent

Gowthamkumar

Excerpt

.....r/w. 442 of the bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order passed in crl.m.p.no.426 of 2025 in stc.no.13 of 2026 by the judicial magistrate, gudiyatham dated 27.01.2026 and pas such further or other orders. for petitioner(s): k.venkateswaran page1 of 4orderthis criminal revision petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the order dated 27.01.2026 passed in crl.m.p.no.426 of 2025 in stc.no.13 of 2026 on the file of the judicial magistrate, gudiyatham.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learnedmagistrate, while passing the impugned order, condoned a delay of 62 days without assigning sufficient reasons. it is the specific submission of the petitioner that, though it was stated that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever, no supporting medical records were produced and, without any basis, the learned magistrate condoned the delay.3. i have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.4. though the learned magistrate has observed that the claim of illness was not supported by any documentary evidence, he has taken into consideration the other aspects of the case and ultimately arrived at theconclusion that the delay ought to be condoned in order to meet the ends ofjustice. page2 of 45. it is a well-settled principle of law that when the court below hasexercised its discretion in condoning the delay, the higher court should be slow to interfere with the same. in the case on hand, the delay is only 62 days and the learned magistrate has also recorded the reasons as to why the delay is to be condoned.6. in view of the above, and in the light of the decision of the hon’blesupreme court in (1998) 7 scc 123 in n.balakrishnan vs. m.krishnamurthy, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. hence, this criminal revision iss dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. mpa to1. the judicial.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Divyashree W/o. Ashok, No.5, Muthtamil Nagar, Katpadi Taluk, (Now residing at) No.8, Muthtamil Nagar, 1st Main Road, Katpadi Taluk ..Petitioner(s) Vs Gowthamkumar S/o. Moorthy. No.22/23, Kattabomman Street, Pandiyan Nagar, Gudiyatham, ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.426 of 2025 in STC.No.13 of 2026 by the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham dated 27.01.2026 and pas such further or other orders. For Petitioner(s): K.Venkateswaran Page1 of 4

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the order dated 27.01.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.426 of 2025 in STC.No.13 of 2026 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned

Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, condoned a delay of 62 days without assigning sufficient reasons. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that, though it was stated that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever, no supporting medical records were produced and, without any basis, the learned Magistrate condoned the delay.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

4. Though the learned Magistrate has observed that the claim of illness was not supported by any documentary evidence, he has taken into consideration the other aspects of the case and ultimately arrived at the

conclusion that the delay ought to be condoned in order to meet the ends of

justice. Page2 of 4

5. It is a well-settled principle of law that when the Court below has

exercised its discretion in condoning the delay, the higher Court should be slow to interfere with the same. In the case on hand, the delay is only 62 days and the learned Magistrate has also recorded the reasons as to why the delay is to be condoned.

6. In view of the above, and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in (1998) 7 SCC 123 in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, this Criminal Revision iss dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. MPA To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham. Page3 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Divyashree vs Gowthamkumar Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan