Disposed

M.N.Janardhanan Nambiar v. N.Krishnakumar

Kerala HC24 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1103/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal miscellaneous case, directed the trial court to dispose of pending applications filed by the accused and subsequently try the main case summarily within stipulated timelines due to indefinite adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Magistrate to dispose of the accused's pending applications and try the main case within three months.

M.N.Janardhanan Nambiar Vs N.Krishnakumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/3RD CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1103 of 2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 1757/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

M.N.JANARDHANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 70, S/O.NARASIMHAM, 'THULASI', SKVC ROAD, KANATTUKARA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 011.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

1. N.KRISHNAKUMAR, MANIMALA ROAD, MRRA 32, EDAPPALLY P.O, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI PIN 682 024.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN

¶14

SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANESH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 1103 of 2014

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE 1. COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.14.

¶22

ANNEXURE 2. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1757/10 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 11, THRISSUR.

¶23

ANNEXURE 3. COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 14.05.09.

¶24

ANNEXURE 4. COPY OF THE WITNESS LIST AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS DATED 01.11.13.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.1103 of 2014

¶32

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2014.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C.No.1757/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur seeking early disposal of the case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶35

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.1757/2010 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II Thrissur, which was taken on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was examined as PW1 on 1.7.2011. The evidence of the complainant was closed on 27.7.2012. Thereafter the matter was being adjourned at the instance of the accused stating one reason or other. On 17.1.2014, there happened to be a wordy altercation between the counsel for the first respondent and the court. The matter was posted on 24.1.2014 by the court below to ascertain whether the first respondent wanted to proceed with the matter before that court or not. On 24.1.2014 the accused filed

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.1103 of 2014 2

¶37

Annexure1 statement stating that he did not want to proceed before the court below and the case was adjourned to 10.4.2014. The petitioner is prejudicially affected by the indefinite adjournments of the case at the instance of the first respondent as the case is pending before that court for the last more than three years now. So he has no other option except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:

¶38

Hence it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur to proceed with C.C.No.1757/2010 in accordance with law and pass final judgment in the matter as expeditiously as possible within a time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court to secure the ends of justice.

¶39

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶40

counsel for the 1^st respondent, who is the accused in the case and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

I have called for a report from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur and a report has been sent by the learned Magistrate which reads as follows:

¶42

¶43

Crl.M.C.No.1103 of 2014

¶44

“1. I had assumed charge as the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur on 20.5.2013.

¶45

2.Thereafter the first posting of C.C.No.1757/2010 was on 24.5.2013.

¶46

Trial was completed on 5.10.2013.

¶47

Subsequently accused had filed a second petition u/s 311 of Cr.P.C on 1.11.2013. When it was taken for hearing, the learned defence counsel had misbehaved on 17.1.2014 and raised false allegations against me and the same can be seen from the Annexure-II in CrlMC.

¶48

Then the case was posted to 24.1.2014. On that day, accused was present in person and he filed a statement in writing to the effect that he did not wish to proceed with the trial before this court with a prayer to transfer the case to any other court.

¶49

It is respectfully submitted that since this court is not having power to transfer the case, the case was adjourned to 10.4.2014 to enable the accused to approach the proper forum to get the case transferred or to conduct the case before my successor.

¶50

In open court, I had directly informed the accused that he has to approach the proper forum to get the case transferred.

¶51

it is respectfully pointed out that at present I am

¶52

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.1103 of 2014

¶54

placed at 18^th position in the seniori8ty list of MunsiffMagistrate and if the Hon'ble High Court is pleased to promote the Musniff- Magistrates including me, this case can be continued here. So the case was adjourned to 10.4.2014 to avoid further delay by transferring the case. It was also informed to the parties in open court. 9. I had not addressed the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate in the administrative side to transfer this case from my court, for the reasons stated above.”

¶55

The counsel for the petitioner only wants a direction be issued to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case.

¶56

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that there was some wordy altercation between the judicial officer and the counsel for the 1^st respondent/accused appearing for that court. Further, the first respondent had filed applications for recalling PW1 and also to summon certain documents to prove his case and when those applications were not considered by the learned Magistrate and the Magistrate expressed some opinion regarding the admissibility of those documents, there was some altercation occurred and except that, counsel has no grievance against the Magistrate. He

¶57

¶58

Crl.M.C.No.1103 of 2014

¶59

wants only the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in those applications and nothing more.

¶60

So considering the circumstances mentioned, this Court feels that there is no necessity to go into the questions further more or make any opinion regarding the aspirations that has been expressed by the counsel for the petitioner or the 1^st respondent in this matter or the memo that has been filed by the accused stating he does not want to proceed with the matter especially when the Magistrate has not acted on that memo and sought for transfer of the case by sending a request to the Chief Judicial Magistrate which out to have been done. What the counsel for the 1^st respondent requires is only passing of orders in the applications filed by him in accordance with law and he had no grievance against the Presiding Officer. So considering these aspects, this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶61

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur is directed to consider and dispose of the applications said to have been filed by the first respondent, who is the accused before that court and pass appropriate orders on those applications in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any

¶62

¶63

Crl.M.C.No.1103 of 2014

¶64

rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the main case itself as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of that order.

¶65

With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of.

¶66

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

Crl.M.C.No.1103 of 2014 7

M.N.Janardhanan Nambiar v. N.Krishnakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.N.Janardhanan Nambiar v. N.Krishnakumar

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

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Maya Murugan Vs Win Castle Chits(P) Ltd.

Devesh Mathur Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Shiju H Vs the State of Kerala