Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GOPALAKRISHNAN versus T.G.GOPINATHAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GOPALAKRISHNAN v. T.G.GOPINATHAN - Tr P(Crl) No. 82 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 1284 (17 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Tr P(Crl) No. 82 of 2006()

1. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner

2. K.K.SYAM,

Vs

1. T.G.GOPINATHAN,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN

For Respondent :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :17/01/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

Tr.P.(Cri) Nos. 82 & 101 OF 2006

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2007

ORDER

The common petitioners in these two transfer petitions are accused in two separate prosecutions - both initiated under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. Those prosecutions are pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Taliparamba, (Tr.P.(Cri) No.82) and the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-IV, Kochi, (Tr.P.(Cri) No.101/06). The prayer of the petitioners is that these cases may be transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, where the connected prosecution - C.C.No.22/05 is pending. The cases are so integrally connected and that the disposal by the same judicial mind will advance the interests of justice. This, in short, is contention.

2. What is the connection between these three cases? The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that five cheques were handed over by the petitioners herein to one Ashoknath. From the said Ashoknath the respondents in these petitions/complainants in the prosecutions under Tr.P.(Cri) NOs. 82 & 101 OF 2006 -: 2 :- Sec.138 of the N.I. Act had some how come into possession of the cheques. They have forged those cheques in order to justify in staking of false claims against the petitioners. The petitioners had filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging the commission of forgery and connected offences by the said Ashoknath as also the respondents/complainants herein. The said complaint was referred to the police and the police, after completing the investigation, had filed the final report. Cognizance was taken on such final report and C.C.No.22/05 was registered. The police, in the final report, have raised allegations against one Prathapan - respondent/complainant in Tr.P.(Cri) No.101/06 as also T.G.Gopinathan - respondent/ complainant in Tr.P.(Cri) No.82/06.

3. Thus, while allegation in these two prosecutions under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is that the petitioners have committed the said offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act in respect of the two cheques concerned, the final report in C.C.No.22/05 alleges that the very same two cheques along with other cheques were forged by the respondents/complainants herein along with others. Tr.P.(Cri) NOs. 82 & 101 OF 2006 -: 3 :-

4. Though the respondents/complainants have been served, there is no representation for them when the matter finally came up for hearing. It is submitted that in C.C.No.22/05, though the respondents/complainants herein had claimed discharge, their prayer for discharge has been disallowed and the charges have been directed to be framed. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is real, effective and integral connection between the allegations made in these two prosecutions under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act and the prosecution pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, as C.C.No.22/05. The allegations appear to be in the nature of a case and counter case and it would therefore certainly advance the interests of justice if all the three cases were considered and disposed of by the same judicial mind. Of course, separate trials have to be conducted; but they will have to be disposed of together in succession.

5. In the result:

(a) Tr.P.(Cri) No.82/06 is allowed. S.T.C.No.472/05 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Taliparamba, is transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Tr.P.(Cri) NOs. 82 & 101 OF 2006 -: 4 :- The learned Magistrate, Taliparamba shall forthwith forward the records to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The parties shall appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, without waiting for any further direction on 1/3/2007.

(b) Tr.P.(Cri) No.101/06 is allowed. S.T.No.60/04 pending before Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-IV, Kochi, is transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, where C.C.No.22/05 is pending. The learned Magistrate, Kochi, shall forthwith forward the records to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The parties shall appear before that court on 1/3/2007. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.