Disposed

Raghavan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2017Crl.MC/4038/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the petitioner in a cheque dishonour case to voluntarily surrender within two weeks. If he complies, the Magistrate must consider bail and recall the warrant on the same day. The current coercive measures were suspended pending such appearance.

What did the court decide?

Suspended coercive measures including N.B. warrant and directed Magistrate to consider bail on day of surrender.

Raghavan Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/23RD JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4038 of 2017 ()

¶6

CC 10/2002 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAGHAVAN, AGED 58, S/O.POKKAN, CHERUVANGATTU KUNNY HOUSE, ONCHIYAM PO, CHOMBALA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED

¶10

SRI.A.S.NAUSHAD

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

Crl.M.C.No. 4038 of 2017

¶19

==================

¶20

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2017 O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is accused for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No. 10/2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thalassery, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant. According to the petitioner, he has not been served with any summons in the matter and that he has recently come to know that a non bailable warrant is pending against him due to his non- appearance in that case before the trial court. It is also averred that he is ready to surrender before the trial court and that he apprehends that due to the long pendency of the matter, the learned Magistrate may adjourn the bail application and it may consequently result in his remand, etc. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has preferred the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C. with the following prayers:

¶22

“(i) issue a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery to recall the warrant issued against the petitioner in C.C.No. 10/2002.

¶23

(ii) issue a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery to consider the bail application of the Petitioner on the date of his surrender itself and to enlarge him on bail in connection with C.C.No. 10/2002.”

¶24

Heard Sri.M.Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel appearing for

¶25

the petitioner and Sri.Justin Mathew, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶26

Crl.M.C.4038/17 - : 2 :-

¶27

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in case the petitioner voluntarily surrenders and personally appears before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thalassery, which is dealing with C.C.No. 10/2002, within two weeks from the date notified for receipt of the certified copy of this order and prefers necessary applications for grant of bail, recall of non-bailable warrant, etc., then the learned Magistrate shall consider those applications on the same day itself and pass necessary orders in accordance with the legal principles laid down by this Court and by the Apex Court in the decisions as in Oseela Abdul Khaker v. State of Kerala reported in 2012 (4) KLT 535 and in the case Rasiklal v. Kishore, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 446 and also taking into account the crucial fact of the matter that the offence alleged against the petitioner is only a bailable one. Until orders are thus passed by the learned Magistrate, all coercive steps including the non-bailable warrant said to have been pending against the petitioner will stand under suspension. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate within the time limit as directed above, then the benefit of this direction will stand automatically vacated without any further orders from this Court.

¶28

With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.

¶29

sdk+

¶30

Crl.M.C.4038/17 - : 3 :-

Raghavan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasikumar Vs N. Unnikrishnan

Ajmi Sameer Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Jyothish Vs K. Divakaran

George Varghese Vs Joy G.

Tharammal Pavithran Vs M.P.Haris

Muhammed Basheer Vs Geetha