Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 365 (MAD)

Susi Ganesan v. Leena Manimekalai

2022-02-09

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

body2022
JUDGMENT : MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. (Prayer: CMP.No.1492 of 2022 filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to grant leave to file an appeal; and (ii) WA.SR.No.8869 of 2022 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 03.12.2021 in W.P.No.20411 of 2021.) 1. Heard on the application to grant leave for maintaining the appeal against the order dated 03.12.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the criminal case lodged by him, the passport authority, after causing notice on the accused, passed an order to impound the passport. The order aforesaid was appealable. But, without resorting to the remedy aforesaid, the writ petition was maintained and consequently, allowed. 3. The applicant, being the complainant in the criminal case, is affected by the outcome of the writ petition because by releasing the passport, the accused would travel out of the country causing delay in the trial. In view of the above, leave may be granted. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. The only reason given for filing the appeal is the delay in completion of the trial, if the passport of the accused is not impounded. The order passed by the passport authority impounding the passport has been quashed by the learned Single Judge. The concern shown by the applicant is for the delay in conducting the trial. It has been noted by the Apex Court in its order dated 17.12.2021 in SLP (Crl.) No.9863 of 2021 against the same order dated 03.12.2021, in the following terms: “The High Court also observed that it was not even necessary for the respondent to be present in person for all hearings. She could be represented by counsel so that the trial could be completed at an early date. As and when presence of the respondent was required, summons would be issued well in advance. In view of the said direction, it is open to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial. It is not necessary for the accused respondent to be present at the time of the trial. The trial shall be completed expeditiously, preferably, within four months from date of communication of this order. In view of the said direction, it is open to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial. It is not necessary for the accused respondent to be present at the time of the trial. The trial shall be completed expeditiously, preferably, within four months from date of communication of this order. In the event the Trial Court feels the necessity to have the presence of the respondent, summons/notice shall be issued with reasonable time notice and in the event, the presence of the respondent does not appear necessary, steps may be taken, in accordance with law.” 6. The directions quoted above show that an observation has been made about the presence of the accused as she was represented by counsel. The Court has been directed to proceed with the matter without the presence of the accused on all the dates of hearing, but as and when the presence is necessary, summons/notice may be issued within a reasonable time for appearance. A direction is otherwise given for expeditious completion of the trial, preferably within four months from the date of communication of that order. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the same order is sought to be challenged by the applicant by seeking leave alleging delay in completion of the trial. We do not find any substance in those arguments in the light of the order passed by the Apex Court and that too in reference to the same order. Leave for that reason cannot be granted. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is rejected at the SR stage.