BOSE V V Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this court to complain about the action taken against him by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam in the proceedings initiated against him.

(2.) The petitioner initially faced indictment for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That proceedings was numbered as C.C.No.2032/2001. The matter dragged on from time to time. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to raise all contentions including technical ones to save himself from the penal consequences of his alleged culpable acts. He took up one such defence and it virtually become impossible to even contemplate a conviction against him in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant, when the matter came up for hearing, reported that the complaint was not being pressed. The petitioner was on bail in that case, all along. The said case was accordingly closed as withdrawn by the complainant.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the complainant resorted to a curious method of filing a fresh private complaint alleging the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 465 I.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to wait in the court after the disposal of the first case. In the meantime, with alleged unholy haste, the fresh complaint of the complainant was entertained by the learned Magistrate and a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner was apprehended from the premises of the court where he was directed to wait. He was detained in custody and remanded to prison. He was released on bail on a later date. On a subsequent day, when the petitioner was absent, warrant was issued against the petitioner again. According to the petitioner, issue of the warrant was most unjustified. He, therefore, came to this court with this Criminal Miscellaneous Case . The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was admitted and directions were issued on 24/01/2007 staying the proceedings. But, inspite of the order of stay, the petitioner was put to further harassment by the police by making the arrest. The learned Magistrate, even after the order of stay was communicated, did not allegedly take steps to withdraw the warrant issued. In these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court again with a further prayer to secure his release. Thereafter, when the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate, he was released from custody. The petitioner complains about the improper course resorted to by the learned Magistrate under which he was compelled to remain in custody unnecessarily. He was allegedly vexed and harassed by subsequent issue of a non-bailable warrant unnecessarily against him.