K.C.CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is filed by the petitioner to issue a direction to the Magistrate in respect of a matter relating to that court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the accused in ST.No.259/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Mavelikkara, which was subsequently made over to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Mavelikkara, where it was renumbered as ST.No.1/2008. Since the petitioner was working abroad, he did not receive any summons and he could not appear. The learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code and transferred the case to register of long pending case as L.P.No.17/2008. Thereafter he appeared and the case was refiled as ST.No.313/2012 and he was acquitted. But the attachment effected as per Section 83 of the Code was not vacated. The same complainant filed two other complaints against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Mavelikkara and they were taken on file as C.C.No.1/2014 and 2/2014 and in those cases, he appeared and released on bail and trial of those cases are over, but the order of attachment of the property still continues. Though the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate court as Ext.P2, no orders have been passed on that application by the learned Magistrate. So, under the circumstances, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. To issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Mavelikara to withdraw the order of attachment of the property of the petitioner issued in ST.No.313/2012; ii. To issue a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Mavelikara to issue orders withdrawing the attachment of the property of the petitioner made in C.C.No.1/2014 and C.C.No.2/2014; and iii. To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) CONSIDERING the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this Court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor dispensing with notice to the third respondent, who is the complainant in the lower court. The relief claimed by the petitioner is that the petition filed by him to lift the attachment before the court below has not been disposed of.