SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 17TH ASWINA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 8312 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2024 IN CRA NO.41 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

VARGHESE K. A AGED 45 YEARS S/O ABRAHAM, KAYAPPURATHU HOUSE, KULAMAVU P. O., KULAMAVU KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685601 BY ADVS.

ARUN V.G. (K/795/2004)

R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)

NEERAJ NARAYAN DENNY VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

2 JOHNSON P. V AGED 61 YEARS S/O VARKEY, PATHIKKAPPARAYIL HOUSE, MUTTOM P. O., MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 685587 BY ADV. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

09.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

---------------------------------------

Crl.M.C.No.8312 of 2024 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 9th day of October, 2024

ORDER

Petitioner challenges the order dated 27.04.2024, produced as Annexure-A3, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount imposed by the trial court as per the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Petitioner challenges the said proceeding, contending that the impugned order does not provide any reasons as required in the judgment in jamboo Bhandari v. M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. [(2023) 10 SCC 446]. However, the learned counsel fairly conceded that subsequent to the impugned order, petitioner had sought extension of time by filing an application as Crl.M.P.No.2604/2024, and acting on the said application, the Sessions Court extended the time till 25.07.2024.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the challenge against Annexure-A3 order cannot be entertained now, since the petitioner cannot aprobate and reprobate. After seeking an extension of time to deposit the amount, petitioner cannot, thereafter turn around and challenge the order. Acquiescence to the impugned order restrains the petitioner from thereafter challenging it. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. However, considering the circumstances, a lenient view can be adopted and a breathing time can be granted.

4. Therefore, the time to deposit the amount as directed in Annexure-A3 order shall stand extended till 01.11.2024.

With the above observations, this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top