Rajan Joseph vs Tahsildar on 20 December, 2006

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Rajan Joseph vs Tahsildar on 20 December, 2006

Bench: R.Basant

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3612 of 2006()


1. RAJAN JOSEPH, MOOZHURKARA VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SARASAMMA, OTTAPLACKAL VEEDU,

                        Vs



1. TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY.
                       ...       Respondent

2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLAVOOR.

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :20/12/2006

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J.

                      ------------------------------------

                      Crl.M.C.NO.3612 OF 2006

                      ------------------------------------

              Dated this the 20th day of December, 2006.


                                   ORDER

The petitioners claim to be sureties for an accused. Under Section 446 Cr.P.C, an order has been passed against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners have a right of appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have not preferred any appeal. They have come before this Court with this Crl.M.C under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They pray that the proceedings to recover amount from them under Section 446 Cr.P.C may be quashed. When the matter came up for hearing on 07.11.2006, the Court had directed the petitioners to produce the order. The petitioners have now produced that order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. The endorsement thereon shows that the copy was received by the petitioners on 01.12.2006.

2. I am satisfied that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable. The petitioner must certainly challenge the order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C under Section 449 Cr.P.C before the appellate/Sessions Court. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable in view of the specific remedy which is available to the petitioners under Section 449 Cr.P.C.

Crl.M.C.NO.3612 of 2006 2

3. This Crl.M.C is, accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to challenge the order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C in an appeal instituted under Section 449 Cr.P.C.

R.BASANT JUDGE rtr/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court