Kerala High Court
Dr.T.Sreedharan vs State Of Kerala on 21 September, 2023
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA,
1945
CRL.MC NO. 1424 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ST 2592/2018 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KAYAMKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
DR.T.SREEDHARAN, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.THANKARAJ, MANAPPILLY, PUTHIYADAM,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 502
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682 031
2 N.MUTHUKRISHNAN, S/O.NATARAJAN, NO.7/4, PICHAYI
BRAHAMANA STREET, KUMBAKONAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU 612 001
BY ADV SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RENJITH.T.R, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
Crl.M.C No. 1424 of 2021
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
Crl.M.C No. 1424 of 2021
=============================================================
Dated this the 21st day of September, 2023
ORDER
The above Crl.M.C is filed challenging Annexure C order. Annexure C is an order passed in a petition filed by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though an order is passed by the learned Magistrate as evident by Annexure B, which is a petition filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 143A(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the same was allowed, the accused has not deposited the amount. But the learned Magistrate is not taking any action to recover the amount as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the petitioner objected in allowing the Section 311 Cr.P.C petition. But the learned Magistrate allowed the same.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S. Sreekumar, instructed by Adv.P.Martin Jose for the petitioner and also the Pubic Prosecutor.
-3-Crl.M.C No. 1424 of 2021
3. The counsel submitted that when the learned Magistrate issued Annexure B order, directing to deposit 20% of the cheque amount, and the accused failed to pay the same, the Magistrate ought to have taken steps to recover the same, as per the procedure under section 421 Cr.P.C. I think there is some force in that argument. But that is not a reason for not allowing an application under Section. 311 Cr.P.C. I see no reason to interfere with Annexure C order. But there can be a direction to the learned Magistrate to see that Annexure B is implemented by taking steps under Section 421 Cr.P.C, if necessary.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C is disposed of directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam to see that Annexure B order is complied with by the accused, if necessary, after taking steps under section 421 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate will also try to dispose of ST No.2592 of 2018, as expeditiously as possible.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das -4- Crl.M.C No. 1424 of 2021 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1424/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN S.T.NO.2592 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF C.M.P.NO.6655 OF 2019 IN S.T.NO.2592 OF 2018 AS PER ORDER DATED 16.1.2020 ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.309 OF 2021 IN S.T.NO.2592 OF 2018 DATED 4.2.2021 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM.