Allowed

Maya Murugan v. Win Castle Chits(P) Ltd.

Kerala HC21 Mar 2014Crl.MC/1628/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Kerala High Court directed the lower magistrate to recall a non-bailable warrant, direct expedited bail hearing upon surrender, and keep warrant execution in abeyance pending surrender by the accused on a specified date, noting the pending cheque dishonour case.

What did the court decide?

Direct the lower court to recall the warrant, direct expedited bail hearing upon surrender on 31.03.2014, and keep warrant execution in abeyance pending surrender.

Maya Murugan Vs Win Castle Chits(P) Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2014 ()

¶6

--------------------------ST.NO. 1395/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER (ACCUSED) :

¶8

MAYA MURUGAN W/O. MURUGAN, PROPRIETRIX, THYCAUD MEDICALS NEAR PRS HOSPITAL, KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT ADDRESS: SEETHA BHAVAN, T.C. 20/841(3) SOORYA NAGAR, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATIEF

¶10

RESPONDENTS (COMPLAINANT & STATE) :

¶11

1. WIN CASTLE CHITS (P) LTD. KARAKKATTU BUILDINGS, MANIPUZHA, NATTAKOM P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 010 HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT PLAMOODU, PAATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH MANAGER, N.SURESH, S/O. NAGAMANICKAM RESIDING AT T.C. 3/547, CHAKKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

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

¶13

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. HYMA S.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

...2/-

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1628 of 2014 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAYMENT BOOK.

¶21

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T. NO.290/2008 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, KOTTAYAM DATED 04/04/2008.

¶22

ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 25/2/2008.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

¶28

============================== Crl.M.C.No.1628 of 2014

¶29

============================== Dated this, the 21^st day of March, 2014.

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

This is an application filed by the petitioner to give direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No-II, Kottayam, (though it was mentioned in the petition only Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, later, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II (Mobile Court)) to recall the warrant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶32

It is alleged in the petition that a case is pending against the petitioner as S.T.No.1395/10 which was filed on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging that the petitioner has issued a cheque which was dishonoured and she had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But, in fact, on the basis of similar allegations earlier also, the same complainant filed several complaints and she was not aware of the pendency of the present case. Only when Thambannoor Police came and informed about the non-bailable warrant issued

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.1628 of 20 14 : 2 :

¶34

against her, she came to know about the case. So, she has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:

¶35

“ To direct the learned Magistrate to recall the warrant issued in S.T.No.1395 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kottayam.”

¶36

On the basis of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself dispensing with notice to the first respondent and after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

The petitioner wanted time to file application to quash the proceedings. But, the prayer in the petition is only to issue direction to the recall for warrant issued, so petitioner is at liberty to file application to quash the proceedings separately and for the purpose of disposal of this petition, this court need not wait for the same.

¶38

The case is pending from 2010 onwards. If the petitioner did not appear, then, the court has no other option except to take coercive steps to procure the presence of the accused in a case. However, the Counsel for the petitioner

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.1628 of 20 14 : 3 :

¶40

submitted that the petitioner did not receive any summons. If really she did not receive any summons and warrant has been issued against her, she can very well surrender before the concerned magistrate court and move for recalling the warrant

¶41

stating the reason for her non appearance before the court earlier. So, there is no necessity to issue any direction to the court below as claimed in the petition, as it is for that court to consider the reasons stated by the petitioner for non appearance and pass appropriate orders in the application for recalling the warrant if any filed by the petitioner before that court. Further, the Counsel for the petitioner also make a projected apprehension that, the lower court will not consider and dispose of the applications filed for bail or recall the warrant on the date of the filing itself. That apprehension also without any basis as the presiding officers of the Criminal Court are expected to dispose of the bail applications if any filed by the accused persons on their surrender as far as possible on the date of surrender itself unless compelling circumstances warrant to postpone the same to a future date. However, considering the apprehension raised by the petitioner in the petition, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.1628 of 20 14 : 4 :

¶43

If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, No-II, Kottayam (Mobile Court) and move for recalling the non-bailable warrant issued against her and release her in bail in S.T.No.1395/10, then, the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of those applications after hearing the Counsel for the complainant as well as far as possible on the date of filing the application itself. Disposal of this petition will not affect the right of the petitioner to move for quashing the complaint later, if she is so advised. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below on 31.03.2014. Till then, the lower court is directed to keep the execution of warrant in abeyance and this direction is given only because the petitioner happened to be a lady and the offence alleged is only under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If the petitioner did not surrender on that date, the lower court is at liberty to execute the warrant to procure the presence of the petitioner.

¶44

With the above direction and observation, the

¶45

petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below immediately by fax.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.

¶48

¶49

[True copy]

¶50

P.A to Judge

Maya Murugan v. Win Castle Chits(P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Murugan v. Win Castle Chits(P) Ltd.

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

Lalu Vs Sibi Thomas

Renjith Vs Sibi Thomas

Jijo Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Raju Vs the State of Kerala