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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 62439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.M.Habeeb – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC 9976/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/ 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 9976 OF 2023 CC 3251/2017 OF JMFC(SPECIAL COURT) FOR TRIAL OF SEC.138, NI ACT CASES (TEMPORARY)

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

K.M.HABEEB AGED 62 YEARS S/O K.B.MAMMU, SHAJIYA MANZIL,ASHOKA ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM KARA ERNAKULAM - 682026 BY ADVS.

P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)

MEGHA BIJU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

2 MOHAMMED JASIM AGED 29 YEARS S/O SHOUKATH ALI, KULAPURAYKAL HOUSE, SIVARAMAMENONROAD,THRIKKANARVATTOMDESOM, ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O., REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHOUKATH ALI, S/O YUSUF AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAPURAYKAL HOUSE, SIVARAMAMENON ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOMDESOM, ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O., PIN - 682018 OTHER PRESENT:

SRI MP PRASANTH, PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.MC NO. 9998 OF 2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 9998 OF 2023 CC 3252/2017 OF JMFC(SPECIAL COURT) FOR TRIAL OF SEC.138, NI ACT CASES (TEMPORARY)

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

K.M.HABEEB AGED 62 YEARS S/O K.B.MAMMU, SHAJIYAMANZIL,ASHOKA ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM KARA, PIN - 682026 BY ADVS.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)

MEGHA BIJU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

2 MOHAMMED JASIM AGED 29 YEARS S/O SHOUKATH ALI, KULAPURAYKAL HOUSE, SIVARAMAMENONROAD,THRIKKANARVATTOMDESOM, ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O.,KOCHI-18 REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHOUKATH ALI,S/O YUSUF AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULAPURAYKAL HOUSE,SIVARAMAMENON ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOMDESOM, ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O, PIN - 682018 SRI MP PRASANTH , PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2023,CRL.MC NO. 9976 OF 2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------

Crl.M.C. No.9976 & 9998 of 2023 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2023

ORDER

These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed by the same person and the prayer is to quash C.C.No.3251/2017 and C.C.No.3252/2017 on the file of the Special Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (NI Act Cases), Ernakulam. The short point raised by the petitioner in these cases is that nowhere in the complaint or in the notice it is stated that there was any transaction between the petitioner/accused and the complainant and for what transaction, the alleged cheque was issued to him. It is also the case of the petitioner that, in the complaint filed by the complainant, through his power of attorney, no details of the power of attorney is mentioned regarding his relation with the complainant or whether he is conversant with any transactions between the complainant and the petitioner. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Narayanan A.C. & Another v. State of Maharashtra & Others [2015 (1) KHC 456] and Razak Mether v. State of Kerala and Another [2023 (1) KHC 377].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The above Calendar Cases are registered in the year 2017 and therefore, I am not inclined to admit these criminal miscellaneous cases. But the point raised by the petitioner can be raised before the learned Magistrate by filing petitions regarding the maintainability of the complaint. If such petitions are filed, the learned Magistrate will consider the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the complainant, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a time frame. The presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted till final orders are passed in the petition.

Therefore, these Crimin

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top