MAYADEVI S Vs. V.M.ANILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act' for short) in C.C.No.202/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent herein. The dishonour cheque dated 13.01.2016 involved in this case is for Rs.8,50,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner is a housewife and she is now residing in Ahmadabad, Gujarat with her husband and family.

(2.) The complaint was originally pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor as S.T.No.1250/2016. On 06.09.2016, the petitioner had appeared before the said court at Perumbavoor and was enlarged on bail. On that day, the petitioner had moved the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. for permanent exemption from personal appearance. The said petition was posted for orders to 23.02.2017. On 23.02.2017, the present case in S.T.No.1250/2016 was not called before the court at Perumbavoor and after the roll call, the counsel for the petitioner had got information that the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor and that notice would be issued from that court for appearance. On 23.2.2017, the case was renumbered as C.C.No.202/2017 and called before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perumbavoor. On that day, both parties were absent and no notice was issued to either the parties or to the counsel and the case was adjourned to 17.03.2017. The counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Perumbavoor on 17.03.2017 and 25.04.2017 as he was not aware of the posting date and the renumbered case number.

(3.) On 01.07.2017 the petitioner's counsel had appeared before the court below and filed an application to condone the absence of the accused. The said petition was dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has filed another petition as Crl.M.P.No.88/2017 to recall the warrant against the petitioner. But the said petition was also dismissed stating that the accused is not personally present before the court. Thereafter the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Perumbavoor has cancelled the bail application also on that date. It is stated that the above said proceedings are not reflected in the B-Diary proceedings dated 01.07.2017. It is further stated that no notice was issued either to the accused or to the counsel for the accused, from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Perumbavoor after transferring the case. It is also stated that the presence of the accused was not highly necessary on 17.03.2017 and that more over the application of the petitioner filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance was also pending consideration of the Magistrate Court. The petitioner is a housewife and she is stated to be a mother of two children and that she is now residing at Gujarat with her husband and family. Further that even though the learned counsel for the petitioner had appeared before the court below on 01.07.2017 and moved an application as CMP No.88/17 for recalling the warrant, the court below has dismissed the said petition and has cancelled the bail. In the light of these aspects that the petitioner has filed the instant Crl.M.C. with the following prayer.