Dismissed

K.Vijaya Rani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1612/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a cheque dishonour case sought bail and exemption from personal appearance before Kerala High Court. Court held Section 482 not appropriate for such direct orders and directed surrender to trial court for consideration of cash security and bail.

What did the court decide?

Accused directed to surrender to trial court to seek recall of warrant and bail via cash security; trial court to consider plea.

K.Vijaya Rani Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/22ND PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1612 of 2014

¶6

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

¶7

ST NO. 1169/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶9

K.VIJAYA RANI, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.PRADEEPAN, GEETHA QUARTERS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, MAHE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.E.K.AVINASH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 531.

¶13

2. MANIKANDAN A., S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, ANCNUKANDY HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670 011.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA P.GEORGE

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.1612/2014

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEX.A1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION DTD. 10/03/14 FROM INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, THALASSERY. ANNEX.A2: TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DTD. 25/02/14 ISSUED FROM THE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, MAHE. ANNEX.A3: TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DTD. 4/03/14 ISSUEDFROM THE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, MAHE.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.1612 of 2014

¶27

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2014.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This is an application filed by the accused in S.T.No.1169/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur for a direction to the court below to grant bail after accepting cash security furnished by the petitioner alone under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is working as a Sanitary Assistant in Government Hospital, Kannur ailing from serious respiratory disease and undergoing treatment for the last several months. She has been falsely implicated in a case initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the second respondent and that case is now pending as S.T.No.1169/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. According to the petitioner, the second respondent/complainant is the money lender and he misused of a blank signed cheque said to have been given by the petitioner by filling up the same by showing huge amount

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.1612 of 2014 2

¶32

and filed the complaint. She could not appear in person before the court on getting summons and she appeared through counsel and applied for exemption. But the Magistrate insisted personal appearance of the accused on the subsequent posting date and since she did not appear on that day, non bailable warrant was issued against her on 1.3.2014 and the case is now posted to 24.5.2014 for return of non bailable warrant. The fact that she is working in the District Hospital has not been considered by the court below before issuing the non bailable warrant and it was issued in a routine manner. She is finding it difficult to get sureties having landed property and she is prepared to deposit a minimum bond amount to the satisfaction of the court below and she apprehends that she will be remanded to custody. So she has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief:

¶33

i. it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to quash the non bailable warrnt pending against the petitioner and direct the trial court to allow the accused to conduct the case through the counsel on the basis of the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

ii. it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant two months time for the petitioner to appear before the trial court on medical grounds and direct the trial court to release the petitioner on bail on

¶35

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.1612 of 2014

¶37

the same day of appearance on money bond, without insisting for solvent sureties with landed property and grant such other reliefs this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant according to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶38

Considering the nature of the relief claimed in the petition, this Court felt that this petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor dispensing with notice to the second respondent .

¶39

Even from the allegations in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner has not appeared in person on getting summons on the first hearing date. She appeared thorough counsel and personal appearance of the petitioner exempted on that date and the court wanted the presence of the accused for considering that request and then posted to 1.3.2014. But on that date, she did not appear. So non bailable warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate. It is settled law that in order to consider personal exemption, the petitioner must first appear and get bail and then file an application for getting personal exemption. That was not done in this case. Further allegations in the petition regarding maintainability of the complainant etc are matters to be considered by the Magistrate on the basis of

¶40

Crl.M.C.No.1612 of 2014 4

¶41

the evidence. Similarly the nature of surety to be produced for granting bail is also to be decided by the Magistrate by exercising his or her discretion. All those things cannot be directed to be done by this Court invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, this Court feels that this petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶42

If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur and moves for recalling the warrant and release her on bail with a request to furnish cash security in stead of property security by the sureties and also seeking exemption of personal appearance, those things can be considered by that court and the learned Magistrate is directed to consider those things after hearing the counsel for the complainant as well and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in those applications as far as possible on the same day of filing the applications itself.

¶43

Sd/K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

Crl.M.C.No.1612 of 2014 5

K.Vijaya Rani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijaya Rani v. State of Kerala

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

Mohammadali Vs State of Kerala

Santhamma Abraham Vs P.P.Singh

Syamala Vs State of Kerala

Sakkeer Hussain Vs Mohammed Koya

P.K.Shanavaz Vs the Union Bank of India

Muhammed Noushad E.K Vs State of Kerala