In a criminal miscellaneous case arising from a cheque dishonour complaint, the petitioner faced procedural delays and jurisdictional disputes. The High Court directed the trial court to admit the complaint, record evidence, and dispose of the case within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/12TH BHADRA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 78 of 2015 ()
CC 540/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, (SPL.COURTMARKLIST CASES) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT :
----------------------------------------
G. GANESAN, PROPRIETOR, SABARI FILMS, SHAMEEES BUILDINGS, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. MR.KAMALUDEEN
THAMEENS'S RELEASE, 42/1621, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14 (RICHU THAMEEN'S RELEASE, KALIYIKKAVILA, PARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) - 695014
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
Crl.MC.No. 78 of 2015 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE 5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE KUZHITHURAI.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
================ Crl.M.C. No. 78 of 2015
=======================
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2015
O R D E R
It is a peculiar situation wherein an unfortunate complainant, who happened to file a complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act has been running from pillar to post for getting his complaint adjudicated.
Crl.M.C. No. 78 of 2015
2
wanted the petitioner to adduce evidence afresh. At that stage, the complaint was returned in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (3) KLT 605 (SC)] for presentation before the Court in Kanyakumari District. The petitioner approached the said Court with the complaint. The same was returned by the said Court through Annexure E order, on the ground that evidence was recorded in the case. Again, the petitioner returned with the complaint and presented it before the court below. The case was renumbered as C.C.540/2014.
Crl.M.C. No. 78 of 2015
3
the matter and deal with the matter on merits, and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 'two' months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
stu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint where its jurisdiction has been questioned by the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of MaharashtraExplained¶41
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (3) KLT 605 (SC)]
G. Ganesan
Kamaludeen
State of Kerala
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
