Kerala High Court
P.M. Majeeb Rawther vs M/S. Alpha Zee Systems on 19 February, 2009
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23357 of 2006(E)
1. P.M. MAJEEB RAWTHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. ALPHA ZEE SYSTEMS, VIKAS NAGAR,
... Respondent
2. N. VENUKUMAR, PARTNER,
3. DAVID SAGHYA RAJ, PARTNER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.K.R.SUNIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :19/02/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
........................................................................
W.P.(C) No.23357 OF 2006
.........................................................................
Dated this the 19th February , 2009
J U D G M E N T
The challenge involved in this Writ petition is against Ext.P1 order dated 07.02.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta in C.C.No. 339 of 2002 whereby the earlier direction to forward the disputed cheque for examination by a private expert was modified, directing that the same would be forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. It is contended by the petitioner that the above order was passed without giving any opportunity for hearing to the petitioner and further that it is not legally sustainable, as there is no provision for review under the relevant provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent brought to the notice of this court that the matter actually involves three different cheques and respective complaints W.P.(C) No.23357 OF 2006 2 arising therefrom and in all the cases, the respondents who are the accused have disputed the signature and execution of the cheques. It is further stated that two cheques have already been forwarded for expert opinion to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram and report was obtained stating that the same appeared to be forged instruments. It has also been brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had, on an earlier occasion, approached this court challenging exactly a similar order like Ext.P1, that was passed in C.C.No.431 of 2002 by filing Crl.M.C.No. 2774 of 2004 and after hearing, this court did not find it necessary to interfere with and accordingly, the said Crl.M.C. was dismissed as per the order dated 12.01.2005. It is further submitted that pursuant to filing of Tran sfer Petition (Crl.)87 of 2007 and order dated 27.02.2008 passed therein, all the three cases are now pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Ernakulam for joint trial.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has W.P.(C) No.23357 OF 2006 3 been pointed out that the petitioner has approached this court suppressing the order dated 12.01.2005 passed in Crl.M.C.No.2774 of 2004 which is a case connected with the cheque involved in C.C.No.431 of 2002 of the C.J.M. Court, Pathanamthitta as stated herein before. On being confronted with the position, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to explain the situation referring to the contents of Ground 'G' where there is a vague averment as to the refusal on the part of this court to interfere with the 'order passed by the learned Magistrate in another identical case between the parties'. It is further stated therein that a stay order was passed in the said Crl. M.C. on 12.01.2005 which is nothing but a mis- representation in so far as the order dated 12.01.2005 was virtually dismissing Crl.M.C.No.2774 of 2004. It has been observed by the Apex Court on many an occasion that reckless briefing of cases by way of submissions, affidavits or such other proceedings without any regard to the actual facts and figures, are liable to be dealt with seriously, as any such instance is having the effect of poisoning the stream of justice. W.P.(C) No.23357 OF 2006 4 The conduct and behaviour of the petitioner in filing the proceedings in the present case giving a distorted version cannot but be deprecated. But taking a lenient view on persuasive requests made by the learned counsel for the petitioner expressing regrets on the mistake occurred-though not at all intended, no further proceedings need be pursued against the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merits, in view of the order dated 12.01.2005 in Crl.M.C.No.2774 of 2004 involving exactly similar circumstance- which has become final.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
lk