Allowed

C.M. Mukundan v. Remanee Narayanan and Another

Kerala HC4 Nov 2008Crl.MC/3870/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition by an accused facing prosecution under Section 138 NI Act. Relying on an inter-party agreement and jurisdictional issues, the court directed the transfer of records from the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Thrikkar to the Court at Palghat.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; records are to be transmitted from C.J.M. Thrikkar to C.J.M. Palghat by 1.12.2008; coercive processes are stayed until the new court resumes.

C.M. Mukundan Vs Remanee Narayanan and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3870 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------ST.1755/2004 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

C.K.MUKUNDAN, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, DHURGA NIVAS, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶12

¶13

RAMANEE NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR OF FAXCOM SYSTEM, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT 6TH FLOOR, COCHIN DEVASOM BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-600001, S/O. T.P.NARAYANAN NELLAYI WESTERN HOUSE, P.O. NELLAYI, THRISSUR.

¶14

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

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN FOR R1

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R. BASANT, J.

¶18

¶19

Crl.M.C.No. 3870 of 2008

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The matter is pending before the learned C.J.M., Trichur. Coercive processes have been issued by the learned Magistrate, it is submitted. The petitioner has come to this Court with a short contention that the learned C.J.M. has no jurisdictional competence to deal with the matter in the light of the decision in Santhoshkumar v. Mohanan (2008 (3) KLT 461).

¶24

The averments in paragraph 8 of the complaint (Annex.A1) shows that the only circumstance attracting jurisdiction is that the collecting bank is situated within the jurisdiction of C.J.M., Trichur.

¶25

The respondent has entered appearance. There is an agreement between the parties that the case can be transferred to the Court of C.J.M. Palghat. I am satisfied that this petition can be allowed.

¶26

¶27

Crl.M.C.No. 3870 of 2008

¶28

In the result:

¶29

a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶30

b) There shall be a direction to the C.J.M., Trichur to forthwith

¶31

transmit the records to C.J.M., Palghat such that the records are received in that court before 1.12.2008.

¶32

c) The parties shall appear before the C.J.M., Palghat on 1.12.2008 to continue the proceedings. Coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till that date. The C.J.M., Palghat shall make every endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from 1.12.2008.

¶33

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶34

C.M. Mukundan v. Remanee Narayanan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M. Mukundan v. Remanee Narayanan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Honey Prasanth Vs Biju Thomas

V.P.Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Alappey Asharaf Vs State of Kerala and Another

Unnikrishnan Vs K.K.Sajeevan

Manu Kumar S. Vs State of Kerala