Tom Philip v. State Bank of Travancore(Now State Bank of India)

Kerala HC2 Jul 2021Crl.MC/2914/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam constituted a听取 both sides and granted direction to the petitioner Tom Philip for his appearance before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Palakkad to explain payment of three cheques and non-bailable warrant issuance, enabling the magistrate to decide on bail if the application is filed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate at Palakkad with due notice to respondents so as to enable him to appraise all matters before the court.

Tom Philip Vs State Bank of Travancore(Now State Bank of… — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2914 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LP 15/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶7

OF FIRST CLASS -I, PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

TOM PHILIP, AGED 60 YEARS, PUTHIYEDAM HOUSE, KARAYANKAD, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD – 678 683. BY ADVS. RAJESH VIJAYAN SIKHA S.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE(NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA) VADAKKANCHERY BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER – 678 869

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGHCOURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶14

02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.MC NO. 2914 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard both sides. Respondents

¶19

appeared through Adv.Gilbert George.

¶20

To quash Annexure A1 complaint,

¶21

the accused came up, against whom Long Pending Case No.15/2000 was registered by

¶22

the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire amount covered by three cheques issued by him in favour of the bank was paid and the transaction was closed. But, in the meanwhile, the bank has initiated criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner. It was actually not within the notice of the accused since he was employed abroad. When he came to

¶23

his native place, he came to know about the pendency of LP and issuance of nonbailable warrant. In the said

¶24

CRL.MC NO. 2914 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

circumstances, permission can be granted

¶27

to the petitioner to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,Palakkad with due notice to the respondents so as

¶28

to enable him to appraise all these matters before the court and the Magistrate shall take a decision on the bail application, if any filed on the very same day taking into account all attending circumstances.

¶29

With the above direction, the Crl.M.C.

is disposed of.

Sd/P.SOMARAJAN,

JUDGE

AMV/02/07/2021

CRL.MC NO. 2914 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

APPPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES :

¶38

ANNEXURE-A1	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.1992 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.
ANNEXURE-A2	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2000 IN ST NO.4593/1998.
ANNEXURE-A3	COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2013 IN CRL.M.C.NO.43/2013, 42/2013 AND 44/2013
ANNEXURE-A4	COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND THE BANK WHICH WAS PRODUCED IN CRL.MC NO.44/2013.

¶39

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL

¶40

TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

Tom Philip v. State Bank of Travancore(Now State Bank of India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tom Philip v. State Bank of Travancore(Now State Bank of India)

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

Amal Vs State of Kerala

Harrish Vs Aabida

Vishnu M.P., Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Jacob R.V. Jose Vs Sasikala Menon

Jacob R.v.Jose Vs Sasikala Menon