Remanded

Shyjesh V.K v. Reena George

Kerala HC4 Jul 2022Crl.MC/3917/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a non-bailable warrant and sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. proceedings against a cheque dishonour accused. The court held summons issued in India while the accused worked in Bahrain was not wilful non-attendance, rendering constructive service applicable.

What did the court decide?

Non-bailable warrant dated 25.4.2022 and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. quashed; petitioner directed to appear and file application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. within one month.

Shyjesh V.K Vs Reena George — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.MC NO. 3917 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 3917 OF 2022

¶7

IN CC 154/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, HOSDRUG

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SHYJESH V.K, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. SUBASH CHANDRAN, FROM
SAUPARNIKA, KOROTH KANDI, CHOMBALA P.O.,
MUKKARI, VADAKARA TALUK
KOZHIKODE-673101
RESIDING AT VILLA NO. 1389, ROAD NO. 2447,
AREA 529 BARHAR, KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN

¶10

BY ADVS.
R.S.KALKURA
HARISH GOPINATH
M.S.KALESH
R.BINDU
P.I.NAJUMAL HUSSAIN
GEORGE AUGUSTINE

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1REENA GEORGE, AGED 39 YEARS,
D/O. GEORGE
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, BIRIKULAM P.O., PARAPPA,
KASARGOD DIST.
(REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ROY
GEORGE, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE P.K.,
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE,CHEROOLITHATTU, PARAPPA
VILLAGE, VELLARKUNDU TALUK,
KASARGOD DISTRICT -671533.
2SURESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O JANARDHANAN PILLAI
T.C. 17/1229, SASTHA NAGAR, PANGODE,
THIRUMALA P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006

¶13

CRL.MC NO. 3917 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031

¶16

R3 BY SRI.P.G.MANU -SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

CRL.MC NO. 3917 OF 2022

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash the non bailable

¶22

warrant dated 25.4.2022 issued by the court below to the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.154/2022

¶24

on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Hosdurg.

¶25

The offence alleged against the petitioner is

¶26

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶27

The non bailable warrant as well as the steps under

¶28

Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C are pending against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is working in Behrin for the last

¶29

so many years and no summons was served to him. Without serving a notice, the court below issued non bail warrant.

¶30

I have heard Sri.Harish Gopinath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.G.Manu, the learned Senior Public

¶31

Prosecutor.

¶32

CRL.MC NO. 3917 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

Considering the nature of the order going to be

¶35

passed, I am of the view that notice need not be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶37

no summons was served to the petitioner prior to the issuance of warrant and initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. The counsel further submitted that the counsel is

¶38

prepared to appear on behalf of the petitioner at the court below and to file a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.

¶39

I have called for a report from the learned Magistrate.

¶40

The learned Magistrate reported that notice issued to the petitioner was returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. However, notice was issued in the address of the petitioner in India. According to the petitioner, he is in Behrin in connection with his employment at the time of institution of the proceedings

¶41

and even before it. In these circumstances, it cannot be said

¶42

that the petitioner wilfully unclaimed the summons and there is

¶43

CRL.MC NO. 3917 OF 20225

¶44

constructive service of the summons.

¶45

In the light of the above facts, this Crl.M.C is

¶46

disposed of as follows:

¶47

i) The non bailable warrant dated 25.4.2022

¶48

issued by the court below as well as the steps under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C initiated against the petitioner stands hereby quashed.

¶49

ii) The petitioner shall appear at the court below through his counsel and file an application for exemption under Section 205 of Cr.P.C within one month. The said application shall be disposed of by the

¶50

court below in accordance with law.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

¶55

CRL.MC NO. 3917 OF 2022

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3917/2022

¶58

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶59

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED
19.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL FOR
THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 TO THE
COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL
Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND ACCUSED IN C.M.P. NO. 739 OF
2021 IN UNNUMBERED C.C. OF 2021 ON THE
FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDURG
Annexure A3CERTIFIED COPY OF THE B DIARY
MAINTAINED IN THE COURT IN C.C. 154 OF
2022 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDURG

¶60

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Shyjesh V.K v. Reena George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyjesh V.K v. Reena George

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

Suresh Babu M.A. Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Riju Vs State of Kerala

Binu Pulickakandam Vs State of Kerala

Thomas @Unni Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar S/O Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Priya Vs 1. The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.