Allowed

Mrs.Beena Haridas v. C.G.Suresh Babu and Another

Kerala HC4 Jul 2014Crl.MC/1036/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order in a Section 138 cheque dishonour case. Finding the condonation of delay sufficient, the High Court upheld the impugned order but directed the lower court to expedite the trial initiated in 2009.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the Criminal M.C. petition; direction to the court below to expedite the trial.

Mrs.Beena Haridas Vs C.G.Suresh Babu and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2014/13TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1036 of 2012 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL M.P NO.332/2009 IN ST NO. 2116/2010 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR DATED 19-08-2010.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

MRS.BEENA HARIDAS, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. SIVARAMAN PILLAI, 'KARTHIKA', P.O. KANNIMANGALAM, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

C.G.SURESH BABU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. CHENMATHARA GOPALAN, P.O. OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR.

¶12

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

¶13

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 1036 of 2012 ( )

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF the PETITION CRIMINAL M.P NO.332 OF 2009 IN S.T NO.2116 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.

¶19

ANNEXURE A2 : COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL M.P NO.332 OF 2009 IN S.T NO.2116 OF 2010. ANNEXURE A3 : ORDER IN CRIMINAL M.P NO.332 OF 2009 IN S.T NO.2116 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.

¶20

RESPONDANTS'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

Crl.M.C No.1036 of 2012

¶26

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2014.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur in Criminal M.P No.332/2009 in S.T No.2116/2010. That was a petition filed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the N.I Act'). The complainant/first respondent approached the court below alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act against the petitioner. The complaint was filed with a delay of 19 days. A petition for condonation of delay under Section 148 of N.I Act was filed along with a complaint. That is Annexure A1. The petitioner filed a counter statement, which is produced as Annexure A2. A3 is the impugned order.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite

¶30

of the fact that the complainant had been served with a notice, there was no representation.

¶31

Crl.M.C No.1036 of 2012 2

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no reason mentioned in the impugned order for condoning the delay in filing the complaint. It is also submitted

¶33

that Annexure A1 petition was filed without showing sufficient cause for excusing the delay. The reason mentioned therein is

¶34

only that when the cheque was dishonoured, the complainant

¶35

was working at Wayanad and he could not file the complaint in time. In the courter statement, the assertion of the complaint that

¶36

he was at Wayanad had been denied. It is true that the impugned order does not show any specific reason for condoning delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a callous manner the delay had been condoned. I have carefully perused the affidavit and the counter statement. Although the order is cryptic and without any specific reason, I find that the delay in this matter is only 19 days and the reason stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay is sufficient and acceptable. Therefore,

¶37

Crl.M.C No.1036 of 2012 3

¶38

I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However,

¶39

noticing the fact that the criminal action was initiated in the

¶40

year 2009. I direct the court below to expedite the trial of the matter.

¶41

In the result, Crl.M.C is disposed accordingly.

¶42

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶45

amk

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

P.A to Judge

Mrs.Beena Haridas v. C.G.Suresh Babu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Beena Haridas v. C.G.Suresh Babu and Another

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

Nazer Abdulla Vs Sunitha

Alias John Vs State of Kerala

Kuruvila @ Appachan Vs Anilkumar

Sarojini Amma Vs State of Kerala

Britannia Industries Limited and Anr. Vs State of Kerala and Another

Vijaya Lakshmi Vs State of Kerala