ANEESHKUMAR M R Vs. SUNIL KUMAR T B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the sole accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.550/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedunkandam, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1 st respondent herein. After appearance of the petitioner accused before the trial court, the learned Magistrate had referred the matter for mediation at the Mediation Sub Centre, Kattapana,. The cheque amount involved in this case comes to Rs.3 lakhs. In the mediation, both the petitioner and the complainant arrived at a settlement as per Anx.A dated 26.10.2015 that the complaint could be withdrawn on the accused paying an amount of Rs.1.38 lakhs to the complainant on or before 30.1.2016.

(2.) According to the petitioner, due to his impecunious financial circumstances, he could not raise the amount of Rs.1.38 lakhs as agreed to in the mediation. The case was again posted before the trial court on 3.3.2016. On 3.3.2016 as the petitioner was not able to be personally present before the trial court, coercive proceedings were initiated against him after cancellation of the bail bond on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the mediation settlement and had also on the ground that he failed to appear before the court in person on 3.3.2016. This would be evident from the proceedings of the learned Magistrate as per Anx.E dated 3.3.2016. Apprehending remandal custody by the trial court in execution of the NBW pending against the petitioner, the petitioner has constrained to approach this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.2222/2016 seeking directions from this Court so as to direct the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail on his surrender and applying for bail before the court below. This Court as per Anx.C order dated 7.4.2016 had disposed of Crl.M.C.No. 2222/2016, with the direction that the learned Magistrate should consider the bail application made by the petitioner on the date of surrender itself. That in compliance with Anx.C order, the petitioner had surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 28.4.2016 and the Magistrate had insisted that the petitioner should deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- as a condition for grant of bail and the petitioner was constrained to agree that he will deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly, as per Anx.D order dated 28.4.2016, the learned Magistrate had granted bail to him on the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit Rs. 40,000/- on 2.5.2016 and that the accused will be present on 2.5.2016.

(3.) It is further averred that on 2.5.2016, the petitioner had appeared before the trial court and he was constrained to hand over an amount of Rs.35,000/- on that day and the learned Magistrate had further directed that the petitioner should deposit additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- on or before 4.6.2016 and the case was adjourned to 4.6.2016. These aspects are also discernible from a reading of Anx.E proceedings, more particularly one in relation to the posting date of 2.5.2016, which reads as follows: