Allowed

E.Rajendran Nair v. Aboobacker Sidique and Another

Kerala HC2 Nov 2011Crl.MC/2784/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted a petition allowing a joint trial of five cheque dishonour cases instituted against an accused, holding that since all cheques stemmed from one transaction, a common trial would facilitate the facts and cause no prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The petition for a joint trial of five cases was allowed; the Learned Magistrate was directed to try all cases together and pass a common judgment.

E.Rajendran Nair Vs Aboobacker Sidique and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2784 of 2011(C)

¶6

------------------------CMP NO:3113/11 IN CC.426/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED

¶8

-------------------

¶9

E.RAJENDRAN NAIR,S/O.KUTTYKRISHNAN NAIR, SREELAKSHMY HOUSE,KOLANGARAVALAPPIL, MODAKKALLOOR.P.O,KOTHANGAL.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶12

--------------------------

¶13

1. ABOOBACKER SIDIQUE,SWAPNAM, MANASSERY AMSOM, CHENNAMANGALUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶14

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

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC POSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JJJ

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 2784 of 2011(C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNX. 1: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOZHIKODE, IN C.C.NO:426/09

¶22

ANNX. II: COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO:3113/2011 IN CC NO:426/09 DATED 27.7.2011 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE

¶23

ANNX. III: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28.08.2008 ANNX. IV: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12.08.2008

¶24

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

JJJ

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶29

Crl. M.C. NO: 2784 OF 2011(C)

¶30

Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioner is the accused in five cases instituted against him by the respondent alleging offences under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. All the five cases were taken on file by the learned Magistrate. A petition was filed by the accused to have a joint trial on all the five cases together since, according to the petitioner, all the cheques were issued as part of the same transaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheques were issued by the accused allegedly to discharge the liability which arose out of one transaction, namely, the purchase of articles for the construction of the house. According to the learned counsel, since all the cheques happened to be issued in relation to one transaction, all the five cases can be tried together.

¶33

Crl.M.C. No:2784/2011 2

¶34

The petition, for that purpose, filed by the accused before the learned Magistrate was dismissed stating that two cheques are covered by one agreement dated 28.8.2008 and the other cheques were covered by another agreement dated 12.8.2008. But the learned counsel would submit that though two agreements were executed, on going through the averments in the complaint, it can be found that the cheques were issued to discharge the liability which arose, as the accused was stated to have defaulted to pay the amount covered by the bills issued by the complainant when articles were puchased from the complainant.

¶35

Though notice was issued to the

¶36

complainant/respondent, he did not enter appearance. The learned counsel would submit that he did not raise any objection before the learned Magistrate also. According to the learned counsel, joint trial of all the cases would actually help the complainant also, as otherwise it would be difficult

¶37

Crl.M.C. No:2784/2011 3

¶38

for the complainant to explain the execution of two agreements. What ever that be, submission made by the learned counsel is that no prejudice will be caused to the complainant or to the accused by having joint trial of all the five cases. It is true that the cause of action in each of the cases may be different, the dates of the cheques, presentment, dishonour and notice issued may be different from one another but, if all the cheques happened to be issued in relation to one transaction, there would be no difficulty to have all the five cases tried together. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant or to the accused if all the five cases are tried together. Hence this petition is allowed. Learned Magistrate will try all the five cases, mention above, together and will pass a common judgment.

¶39

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶40

jjj

E.Rajendran Nair v. Aboobacker Sidique and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Rajendran Nair v. Aboobacker Sidique and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose Antony Vs v.K.Ummer

Ajikumar Vs State of Kerala

C.Vijayan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Another

B.Radhakrishna Pillai Vs S.Saraswathy

T.J.Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Luhit Moran Vs State of Kerala