Dismissed

V.P.Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2008Crl.MC/3322/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. It held that the petitioner may raise contentions before the Magistrate and no further directions were needed.

What did the court decide?

This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with observations that the petitioner can raise contentions before the Magistrate and no further directions are necessary.

V.P.Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3322 of 2006()

¶6

------------------------S.T.NO.3836/05 OF J.F.C.M-III, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

V.P.ANILKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF SRI.Y.U.PARAMESWARAN (SINDHU COTTAGE), PERINJIRAYIL HOUSE, EROOR WEST, TRIPUNITHURA-682 306.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LIMITED, MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPPAD P.O., THRISSUR DIST., REP. BY MR.A.U.UNNIKRISHNAN, THE JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT TO THE COMPANY, AGED 37 YEARS.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOMOHANAN FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R.BASANT, J.

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.3322 of 2006

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of November 2008

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, the cheque is issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt or liability; but issued only as a security when the parties had entered into a hire purchase transaction. It is prayed that the prosecution may be quashed. At the stage of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain how that contention raised by the petitioner - justifies the quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that there may be a direction that the petitioner can raise that contention before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage.

¶22

No observation or direction is necessary to facilitate the raising of such contention before the learned Magistrate by the petitioner. The petitioner, in law, can raise all his contentions before the learned Magistrate in a prosecution

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.3322/08

¶24

¶25

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is initiated against him.

¶26

No further, specific or special directions appear to be

¶27

necessary.

¶28

In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above

¶29

observations.

¶30

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr

Crl.M.C.No.3322/08 3

Crl.M.C.No.3322/08 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.No. of 2008

ORDER

09/07/2008

V.P.Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aboobacker Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

M.Gopinathan Nair & Another Vs State of Kerala, Public Prosecutor & Anr.

Honey Prasanth Vs Biju Thomas

A.P.Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Radha and Another Vs State of Kerala