R.Saravanan Vs Suguna

R.Saravanan vs Suguna

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 29, 2025

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1869037

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/1869037
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Decided On: Jul 29, 2025
Case Number: CRL RC/516/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R.Saravanan

Respondent

Suguna

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 29.07.2025coram:the honourable mr. justice g.k.ilanthiraiyan and crl.m.p.no.6883 of 2025 r.saravanan ... petitioner vs. c.mani (deceased)1. suguna2. gowtham vignesh3. aarthi ... respondentsprayer: criminal revision has been filed under section 438 r/w 442 of the bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023, praying to set aside the order dated 01.02.2025 made by the learned judicial magistrate-i, salem in crl.m.p.no.397 of 2023 in c.c.no.127 of 2010 by allowing the revision petition. for petitioner : no appearance for respondents : mrs. r.rajiorderthis criminal revision has been preferred challenging the orderdated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned judicial magistrate-i, salem, in crl.m.p.no.397 of 2023 in c.c.no.127 of 2010, thereby allowing the petition to substitute the legal heirs of the deceased defacto complainant.2. originally the husband of the first respondent filed complaint asagainst the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. the second and third respondents are the son and daughter. while pending trial, the complainant died and as such, the respondents were substituted as complainant 2 to 4. aggrieved by the same, the present revision.3. in the proceedings under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, if the complainant died, his legal heirs can very well substitute in the place of the complainant. therefore, the trial court rightlyallowed the petition and this court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orderpassed by the trial court.4. accordingly, the criminal revision case stands dismissed. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. internet:yes index:yes/nospeaking/non speaking orderrts to1. the judicial magistrate-i, salem. g.k.ilanthiraiyan. j, rts

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and Crl.M.P.No.6883 of 2025 R.Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs. C.Mani (Deceased)
1. Suguna
2. Gowtham Vignesh
3. Aarthi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to set aside the order dated 01.02.2025 made by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem in Crl.M.P.No.397 of 2023 in C.C.No.127 of 2010 by allowing the revision petition. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mrs. R.Raji

ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order

dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.397 of 2023 in C.C.No.127 of 2010, thereby allowing the petition to substitute the legal heirs of the deceased defacto complainant.

2. Originally the husband of the first respondent filed complaint as

against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The second and third respondents are the son and daughter. While pending trial, the complainant died and as such, the respondents were substituted as complainant 2 to 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision.

3. In the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the complainant died, his legal heirs can very well substitute in the place of the complainant. Therefore, the trial Court rightly

allowed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order

passed by the trial Court.

4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non speaking order

rts To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, rts

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties R.Saravanan vs Suguna Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan