Dismissed

Arayilakath Kunhikandi Maharoof v. Cheriya Puthalath Abdul Azeez

Kerala HC10 Aug 2012Crl.MC/823/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 484 CrPC challenging the dismissal of an objection to a complaint filed by a Power of Attorney holder under Section 138 N.I. Act. Held that the Magistrate was justified in accepting the complaint as there was no immediate evidence of incompetency.

What did the court decide?

Petition challenging the maintainability of a complaint filed by a Power of Attorney holder was dismissed considering it not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction.

Arayilakath Kunhikandi Maharoof Vs Cheriya Puthalath Abdul… — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/19TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 823 of 2012 (C)

¶6

CRMP.NO.84/2012 IN ST.73/2011 ofJUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, VADAKARA

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ARAYILAKATH KUNHIKANDI MAHAROOF, S/O.MAMMU, AGED 61 YEARS, JAS MAHAL HOUSE, KURICHIYIL POST, KODIYERI, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

CHERIYA PUTHALATH ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, 47 YEARS, MARJAN HOUSE, THIRUVALLUR AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS BY SRI.R.RANJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 823 of 2012

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶18

ANNEXURE A1:	COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AS S.T. NO. 73 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VATAKARA.
ANNEXUREA A2:	COPY OF THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 31/1/2010 PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT IN S.T.NO.73 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VATAKARA.
ANNEXURE A3:	COPY OF THE CMP NO.84/2012 IN S.T.NO.73/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VATAKARA.
ANNEXURE A4:	THE ORDER DATED 25/2/2012 PASSED IN CMP.84/2012 IN S.T.NO.73/2011 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VATAKARA.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN,J

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.823 of 2012

¶25

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2012

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioner is an accused in a complaint involving in an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I. Act'). Complaint was filed by a Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant producing the power of attorney with the complaint. Petitioner/accused challenged the maintainability of the complaint contending that the power of attorney holder should have obtained prior permission of the court to entertain the complaint presented with the Power of Attorney. The learned Magistrate has negatived that challenge by A4 order. Correctness of that order is sought to be assailed in the present petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶28

I heard the counsel on both sides. After going through A4 order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find that this is not a fit case where exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court is called for. Taking of

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.823 of 2012

¶30

¶31

cognizance of a complaint pre-supposes application of mind with reference to not only allegations raised in the complaint but also any document produced with such complaint showing the competency of the person to prefer a complaint on behalf of the complaint. Power of attorney produced with the complaint, prima facie, satisfied the magistrate to receive the complaint on file. As to the competency of the power of attorney holder to give evidence over the transaction relating to the cheque involved in the complaint, if the petitioner/accused has any dispute, to no doubt, he can canvass it in trial. So far as the challenge raised with respect to the competency of the power of attorney to file the complaint in the facts and circumstances presented, I find the learned Magistrate was justified in negativing it.

¶32

Subject to the observation made above, the petition is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/- S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE.

¶34

dlk

Arayilakath Kunhikandi Maharoof v. Cheriya Puthalath Abdul Azeez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arayilakath Kunhikandi Maharoof v. Cheriya Puthalath Abdul Azeez

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

Dr.N.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Athira Vs the State of Kerala

Kanakan Vs State of Kerala

Asokan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Nasser Vs B.K.Muneer

M.K.Asafali Vs Sub Inspector of Police