Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

E.JAYARAJ, JAYARAJ NIVAS versus P.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


E.JAYARAJ, JAYARAJ NIVAS v. P.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR - Crl MC No. 1619 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 1524 (19 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1619 of 2006()

1. E.JAYARAJ, JAYARAJ NIVAS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :19/01/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 1619 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 19th day of January, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The prosecution has been initiated by the respondent/complainant. The complainant alleges that there was an independent transaction between him and the petitioner herein and that the cheque for Rs. 3 Lakhs was issued by him for the discharge of such liability.

2. The petitioner has already entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. He wants to raise a contention that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability, but was issued as a blank signed cheque as security when his friend Manojkumar entered into a transaction with M/s. Kerala Chitty Fund. The said Manojkumarm had filed a complaint against the said Chitty Company under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as he had not received the amount in that transaction and had produced a photostat copy of the blank signed cheque, the original of which Manojkumar had allegedly handed over to Kerala Chitty Fund as security. 2

3. The question whether the cheque was handed over as a blank signed cheque by Manojkumar to Kerala Chitty Fund or whether it was issued by the petitioner for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability to the complainant herein cannot obviously be attempted to be resolved in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the meager probative indications available. That question will have to be decided in the course of trial on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the rival contestants before the learned Magistrate. It would be presumptuous for this Court to hazard any authentic opinion on the disputed questions of facts with the materials presently available. I shall carefully refrain from making any opinion, lest it may prejudice the interests of either contestants.

4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions and substantiate the same before the learned Magistrate and attempt to claim acquittal on the basis of such contentions. (R. BASANT) tm Judge 2


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.