Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MALATHI versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MALATHI v. THE STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 2729 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 16531 (24 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2729 of 2007()

1. MALATHI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :24/08/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.Nos.2729 & 2732 of 2007

Dated this the 24th day of August, 2007

O R D E R

The common petitioner in these two Crl.M.Cs faces indictment in two separate prosecutions, both under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by different complainants. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate has issued coercive processes against the petitioner. She apprehends that she may be arrested in execution of the non bailable warrant issued by the learned Magistrate.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Her omission/failure to appear earlier before the learned Magistrate was not wilful, but was due to reasons beyond her control. She is willing to co-operate with the court for the expeditious disposal of the case and to surrender and seek bail. But she apprehends that her application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is therefore prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner. Crl.M.C.Nos.2729 & 2732 of 2007 2

2. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which she could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

3. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- Crl.M.C.Nos.2729 & 2732 of 2007 3


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.