Dismissed

A.M.Raveendran v. M/S Sarver Global

Kerala HC8 Jan 2024Crl.L.P./439/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought leave to appeal acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. Leave petition dismissed for non-prosecution because notice to the partnership firm (Respondent 1) remains incomplete, preventing representation and legal continuation of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to incomplete service of notice on the first respondent firm.

A.M.Raveendran Vs M/S Sarver Global — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.L.P. NO. 439 OF 2014

¶6

SEEKING LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2014 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, THALASSERY IN C.C.NO.668/2007

¶7

LEAVE PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

A.M.RAVEENDRAN

¶9

AGED 57 YEARS S/O.MANNAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE PEARLVIEW HOTELS PVT.LTD, THALASSERY

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 AND STATE:

¶12

1 M/S.SARVAR GLOBAL NO. 3/537,OPP.F.C.I.,MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR - 670 662.

¶13

2 MR.SUDHEER.P.C HOUSE NO.556,4TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,HAL 2ND STAGE, NEAR INDIRA NAGAR CLUB, BANGALORE-8.

¶14

3 MRS.PRABHA VIJAYAN W/O.VIJAYAN, MUZHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PATHAYAKKUNNU P.O, KANNUR, PRESENTLY PUT UP AT C/O.P.K.VIJAYAN, NTTF TECHNICAL TRAINING FOUNDATION, GKDITR CAMPUS, SANGOTHI PALAYAM,, ARASUR P.O, COIMBATORE 641 045

¶15

4 MR.VINOD KANNAN PRIVIS,THIRUVANGAD P.O, TELLICHERRY-2, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶16

5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS

¶17

SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K – SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

Crl.L.P.No.439 of 2014

¶21

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Crl.L.P.No.439 of 2014

¶23

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2024

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This is a petition seeking leave to appeal. The petitioner seeks leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment in C.C.No.668 of 2007 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery. As per the said judgment, respondent Nos.1 to 4 were acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The 1^st respondent is a partnership firm and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are its partners.

¶26

The 2^nd respondent entered appearance through his learned counsel. Service of notice on the 1^st respondent is yet to be completed. Despite repeated directions, no steps to complete service of notice on the 1^st respondent has been taken.

¶27

Without the firm in the party array, prosecution of its partners for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act

¶28

is not possible. Since notice is not able to be given to the 1^st

¶29

¶30

Crl.L.P.No.439 of 2014

¶31

respondent firm, no appeal can legally be entertained against the order of acquittal.

¶32

This is a leave petition filed in the year 2014. Since service of notice on the 1^st respondent is not yet complete and there is no one to represent the petitioner, there is no meaning in continuing the proceedings.

¶33

In the circumstances, petition is dismissed for non

¶34

prosecution.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶37

A.M.Raveendran v. M/S Sarver Global

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Raveendran v. M/S Sarver Global

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar K Vs State of Kerala

Viju P S Vs State of Kerala

Vinitha.B Vs S.Unnikrishnan

Abdul Rasheed E.K. Vs Koya

Sasidharan a. Vs Vijayan Unnithan