T.K. SUBASH KUMAR Vs. ABEEBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.1508/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam for quashing the proceedings as well as issuing directions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1508/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, which was taken on file on the basis of a private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act'). According to the petitioner, the cheque dated 31.8.2009 was issued for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ - to the complainant drawn on Indian Bank, Guruvayoor branch. The petitioner filed O.S.No.493/2009 against the complainant and another civil suit, O.S.No.621/2010 is also pending. So according to the petitioner, no offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is made out. Non bailable warrant is pending against him and if he surrenders, he is likely to be remanded. In similar cases, this Court has granted directions to consider and dispose of the bail application. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court seeking the following relief: i. To quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1508/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam; ii. To direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam to release the petitioner on bail if the petitioner surrenders before the said court by considering his application for bail on the same day as directed in Annexure -II order. iii. To issue such other orders or directions as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) WHEN the petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not pressing the first relief claimed in the petition and he may be given liberty to agitate those grounds before the trial court but wanted only the second relief giving direction to the lower court to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing itself. Considering the nature of relief claimed now, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor after dispensing with notice to the first respondent/complainant in the case. The counsel for the petitioner wanted only a direction to the court below to consider and dispose of the bail application on the date of filing itself.