Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANTONY SATHYARAJ versus S.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ANTONY SATHYARAJ v. S.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI - Crl MC No. 1770 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9218 (1 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1770 of 2007()

1. ANTONY SATHYARAJ,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. S.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :01/06/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

CRL.M.C.NO. 1770 OF 2007

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner is an accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is his case that the complainant had obtained a cheque as signed blank cheque for security and the same is being fraudulently misused by the complainant. He has filed a private complaint against the complainant. That complaint was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the complaint, a revision has been filed. That petition is pending before another Bench of this Court, it is submitted. That revision, it is urged, has already been admitted.

2. The prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is about to be boarded for trial. The, petitioner, at this stage, has come to this Court with this Crl.M.C. for a direction to the court below not to proceed with the said prosecution until a decision is taken in the Crl. Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of the counter CRL.M.C.NO. 1770 OF 2007 -: 2 :- case. The trial is at the fag end, it is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer. Such prayer, according to me, must legitimately have been raised before the court which is entertaining the revision. The relief claimed is incidental to the main relief claimed in that revision. If the counter case where brought back to file, it would be important that the case and the counter case must be tried together. Without seeking that relief in the revision, I am unable to accept the course adopted by the petitioner to claim stay of proceedings in a separate Crl.M.C. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the petitioner does not deserve any relief.

4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the rights of the petitioner even now to move the court which is seized of the revision and seek appropriate directions shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. 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.