Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

G.BABU, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER versus G.KRISHNAN KUTTY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


G.BABU, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER v. G.KRISHNAN KUTTY - Crl MC No. 2228 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12687 (11 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2228 of 2007()

1. G.BABU, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. G.KRISHNAN KUTTY,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PROSECUTOR,

For Petitioner :SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :11/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2228 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 11th day of July, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. There has been a long fight in that case. The petitioner had come to this Court with Crl.M.C.3425 of 2006 and by order dt.7.12.2006 the petitioner was granted an opportunity to recall a witness examined for the purpose of further cross examination. That chapter of the story is over.

2. When the matter again came up before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner raised a contention that long after the said order dt. 7.12.06, on 16.4.2007 the matter has been settled between the parties and a receipt has been issued by the complainant agreeing to withdraw the case. The complainant denied such receipt and thereupon the petitioner filed application to enable him to send the said document to the expert and to adduce evidence on the question whether that receipt is genuine or not. The learned Magistrate rejected the said prayer. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the rejection of his prayers by Annexs. 5 and 6 orders. Crl.M.C.No. 2228 of 2007 2

3. The learned Magistrate has taken the view that the theory of a subsequent receipt dt. 16.4.07 is inherently improbable and such a theory is being advanced only to further protract the proceedings. The learned Magistrate further noted that even if such subsequent payment has been made, it has no bearing on the question of culpability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction, it is trite, is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Only in exceptional cases in the interests of justice shall this court invoke such powers. The crux of the dispute raised is that there has been a settlement after the passing of the order dt.7.12.06 by this Court. As rightly found by the learned Magistrate, the theory is inherently improbable and unacceptable. The learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in taking the view that it is not necessary to waste further time on enquiry on that aspect. Needless to say, if the petitioner had a contention that the payment had been made, the petitioner shall be entitled to resort to the civil process to claim return of the said amount. For an enquiry on that aspect, the prosecution under Section 138 cannot and need not be postponed. I do not find any merit in the prayer for the Crl.M.C.No. 2228 of 2007 3 invocation of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.