ANAND S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defacto complainant in a prosecution interlia under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The case has been registered in 2006. The case is waiting in the queue to be taken up for consideration by the learned Magistrate. Appearance in the case is complete. The learned Magistrate evidently to save time, is adjourning the case, by notification published outside the court. The petitioner has a pressing requirement for early disposal of the case. According to him, the accused is disposing of all his properties and is preparing to leave the country. If the accused escapes, the petitioner will be without any remedy. He, hence, wants the case to be taken up out of turn. He has rushed to this court with this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

(2.) Has the petitioner moved the learned Magistrate? Is the learned Magistrate apprised of the pressing circumstances which the petitioner wants to urge? Has the learned Magistrate refused to take note of the pressing urgency? Evidently none of these has been done. The petitioner found it convenient to rush to this court. Obviously, such applications cannot be entertained. This court will crumble under the volume of work unless such discipline is insisted on proceedings. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not give a sympathetic ear to the petitioner if the circumstances relied on by him are true. The petitioner must move the learned Magistrate at the first instance and can then only come to this court.

(3.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is in these circumstances dismissed but I make it clear that it shall be open to the petitioner to move the learned Magistrate for expeditious out of turn disposal. The learned Magistrate must consider such request and pass appropriate orders. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.