The Madras High Court reaffirmed that appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution where the appellant fails to provide necessary instructions for service of notice, without addressing or altering any substantive legal principles. The decision follows existing procedural norms, without creating binding or persuasive authority on substantive law questions, and serves as a reiteration of settled judicial practice.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL A/554/2013 of TMT.MANIMEGALAI Vs M.SHANMUGAM, AGED 45 YEARS |
| CNR | HCMA010755402013 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2013 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Precedent Value | No substantive precedent; reiteration of procedure for non-prosecution |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appeal was dismissed solely due to non-prosecution, as the appellant failed to provide instructions for service of notice on the respondent. The Court noted repeated directions to the appellant to ascertain the correct address, which were not complied with. As a result, the case could not proceed and was dismissed. No substantive legal question was determined, nor was any new legal principle enunciated. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant did not provide the correct address for service of notice on the respondent in a criminal appeal filed under Section 378 CrPC. Despite repeated directions from the Court and adjournments, the appellant’s counsel reported a lack of instructions, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding: pertains to procedural default, not a substantive legal issue or precedent |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates that an appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution where the appellant does not furnish necessary instructions or details for effecting service on the respondent.
- Lawyers must ensure compliance with court directions regarding service of notice, or risk dismissal of their client’s case.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that, despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to provide the correct address for serving notice to the respondent.
- The appellant’s counsel reported that there were no instructions to proceed, making it impossible for the Court to continue with the matter.
- Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
- No questions of law or substantive issues were discussed or determined; the decision was based purely on procedural grounds due to non-compliance by the appellant.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The appellant’s counsel informed the Court that there were no instructions from the appellant for proceeding with the matter or effecting service on the respondent.
Respondent:
- Not ready in notice; not served due to appellant’s failure to provide address.
Factual Background
The appellant had filed a criminal appeal under Section 378 of CrPC against a judgment delivered in 2013. Despite repeated directions from the Madras High Court to provide a correct address for serving notice on the respondent, the appellant did not provide the necessary information or instructions. As a result, the respondent could not be served, and the appellant’s counsel communicated a lack of instructions, leading to dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment refers to proceedings under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, pertaining to the filing and prosecution of criminal appeals.
- No interpretation or substantive analysis of statutory provisions was conducted; the case was dismissed for non-prosecution due to procedural default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Procedure for dismissal for non-prosecution reaffirmed; no new principle laid down.