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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
V.VINOD – Appellant
Versus
AFSAL.P – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 10708 OF 2025|Crl.A NO.360 OF 2025|ST NO.150 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
For the Respondents: SRI.M.P.PRASANTH

Court can stay coercive actions pending appeal considerations when justice demands prompt attention to pending petitions.

Headnote:The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenged the sentence via appeal due to delay in filing. The Court ordered a stay on coercive proceedings for four weeks, directing the lower court to expedite the pending applications. The Court's primary determination focused on the balance of justice. The main issues included the delay in appeal and the necessity of coherent judgments on filed petitions. The Court articulated the rationale for interim relief, emphasizing the need for expeditious consideration of the pending applications. Thus, the stay on coercive actions was affirmed pending the lower court's prompt examination of the applications.

Table of Content
1. appeal filed after conviction. (Para 1)
2. court ordered stay on coercive actions. (Para 2)

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

Crl.M.C. No.10708 OF 2025 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 27th day of November, 2025 ORDER Aggrieved by Annexure A1 judgment passed by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Payyannur, in ST No.150/2020, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for allegedly committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, the petitioner has preferred Annexure A2 appeal before the Court of Session, Thalassery, which has been numbered as Crl.Appeal No.360/2025. However, there was a delay in filing the appeal. Even though the petitioner has filed Annexure A3 petition to condone the delay and Annexure A4 petition to suspend the sentence of imprisonment and fine, the said applications have not been considered till date. In the meantime, coercive proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is apprehensive that during the pendency of Annexures A2 to A4 the petitioner may be remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the limited relief that I propose of pass, I dispense with notice to the 1st respondent.

On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, particularly that Annexures A3 and A4 petitions are pending consideration before the Court of Session, Thalassery since 05.11.2025, I dispose of this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, by directing all further coercive proceeding initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Annexure A1 judgment to be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today. It would be upto the petitioner to move Annexures A3 and A4 applications before the Court of Session, Thalassery, who in turn is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible.

sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/27.11.25 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10708/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

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