Kerala High Court
Mrs.Beena Haridas vs C.G.Suresh Babu on 19 August, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2014/13TH ASHADHA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1036 of 2012 ( )
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL M.P NO.332/2009 IN ST NO.
2116/2010 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR DATED 19-08-2010.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
MRS.BEENA HARIDAS,
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. SIVARAMAN PILLAI,
'KARTHIKA', P.O. KANNIMANGALAM, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. C.G.SURESH BABU,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. CHENMATHARA GOPALAN,
P.O. OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH ,
COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM .
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1036 of 2012 ( )
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF the PETITION CRIMINAL M.P NO.332 OF
2009 IN S.T NO.2116 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A2 : COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN
CRIMINAL M.P NO.332 OF 2009 IN S.T NO.2116
OF 2010.
ANNEXURE A3 : ORDER IN CRIMINAL M.P NO.332 OF 2009 IN S.T
NO.2116 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.
RESPONDANTS'S ANNEXURES : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
amk
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.1036 of 2012
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2014.
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur in Criminal M.P No.332/2009 in S.T No.2116/2010. That was a petition filed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the N.I Act'). The complainant/first respondent approached the court below alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I Act against the petitioner. The complaint was filed with a delay of 19 days. A petition for condonation of delay under Section 148 of N.I Act was filed along with a complaint. That is Annexure A1. The petitioner filed a counter statement, which is produced as Annexure A2. A3 is the impugned order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of the fact that the complainant had been served with a notice, there was no representation.
Crl.M.C No.1036 of 2012 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no reason mentioned in the impugned order for condoning the delay in filing the complaint. It is also submitted that Annexure A1 petition was filed without showing sufficient cause for excusing the delay. The reason mentioned therein is only that when the cheque was dishonoured, the complainant was working at Wayanad and he could not file the complaint in time. In the courter statement, the assertion of the complaint that he was at Wayanad had been denied. It is true that the impugned order does not show any specific reason for condoning delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a callous manner the delay had been condoned. I have carefully perused the affidavit and the counter statement. Although the order is cryptic and without any specific reason, I find that the delay in this matter is only 19 days and the reason stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay is sufficient and acceptable. Therefore, Crl.M.C No.1036 of 2012 3 I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, noticing the fact that the criminal action was initiated in the year 2009. I direct the court below to expedite the trial of the matter.
In the result, Crl.M.C is disposed accordingly. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
amk //True Copy// P.Ato Judge