IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 355 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ST 963/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL COURT)FOR TRIAL OF CASES U/S.138, NIACT (TEMPORARY PETITIONER/S:

S. VALSA AGED 80 YEARS W/O THE LATE P.T. JOSEPH PROPRIETRIX, M/S SHOE AVENUE H.O, RESIDING AT DEEPTHI, BTS ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682024 BY ADVS. C.S.MANU C.A.ANUPAMAN T.B.SIVAPRASAD C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR MANJU E.R.

ANANDHU SATHEESH ALINT JOSEPH PAUL JOSE RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 SAFEERA SALAHUDDIN AGED 39 YEARS W/O RENCY JAMAL, D/O M SALAHUDDIN, SHERIN, ELAMKULAM CROSS ROAD, KALOOR COCHIN, ERNAKULAM,KERALA, NOW RESIDING AT DUBAI,UAE, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. FAKRUDHEEN AHAMMED BARAMI, AGED 60 YRS, S/O ABDULLA BARAMY, DOOR NO. 8/70Z, FLAT NO. 7 PH, MADHUR AMRAT APPARTMENT, CORPORATION OFFICE ROAD, KOZHIKODE, CALICUT BEACH P.O.,KERALA, HOLDER OF AADHAR NO. 527382482445, PIN - 673032 OTHER PRESENT:

SMT. V. SREEJA (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

===========================

Crl.M.C.No.355 of 2024 -------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 17^th day of January 2024

ORDER

Petitioner was issued with a Non Bailable Warrant in three cases arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. She filed application for recall of warrant in all the three cases. Without even her presence, the learned Magistrate directed recall of warrant in two cases noticing that the petitioner is an aged lady and had even taken bail earlier. However, in S.T.No.963/2022, the learned Magistrate declined to recall the warrant on noticing that bail had never been taken by the petitioner. Since petitioner had not been released on bail in the said case, the learned Magistrate refused to recall the Non Bailable Warrant without the presence of the petitioner.

2. Sri.C.S.Manu, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that due to old age and various illnesses petitioner is unable to appear before the Magistrate immediately.

3. Smt.Sreeja V., learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and pointed out that in the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had considered the distinction with the two other cases and refused to recall the warrant, which cannot be said to be perverse. 4. On a perusal of Annexures A2, A3 and A4 orders, it can be seen that the learned Magistrate had brought in a distinction in respect of S.T.963/2022 and refused to recall the warrant on noticing the failure of the petitioner to take bail in the said case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the said order cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, I decline to interfere with Annexure A4 order.

5. On noticing the disinclination of this Court to interfere with Annexure A4 order, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time to appear before the Court to take bail and requested for keeping the coercive proceedings in abeyance, lest petitioner be put to serious prejudice.

6. Considering the old age of the petitioner and also the limited relief now pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that coercive proceedings can be kept in abeyance to enable the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate without fear.

7. Hence while declining to interfere with Annexure A4 order, this Court directs the Non Bailable Warrant issued in S.T.No.963/2022 to be kept in abeyance for a period of 15 days from today, within which period petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for recall of warrant and for grant of bail. On such application being filed, the same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate on the same