Sheela T.N. vs Seven Seas Finance (Pvt) Ltd on 5 October, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3068 of 2007()


1. SHEELA T.N., W/O.PRASANNAKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SEVEN SEAS FINANCE (PVT) LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/10/2007

 O R D E R
                                R.BASANT, J
                        ------------------------------------
                       Crl.M.C.No.3068 of 2007
                        -------------------------------------
               Dated this the 5th day of October, 2007

                                  O R D E R

The petitioner, a woman, a member of the noble profession of

law, faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken. The

petitioner has not entered appearance before the learned Magistrate.

Consequently coercive processes have been issued against the

petitioner by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner finds a warrant

of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate chasing her.

2. According to the petitioner, she is innocent. Her absence

earlier was not wilful. She is willing to settle the disputes and ensure

that the complainant compounds the offence alleged against her.

Three weeks’ time is required to settle the disputes and report

composition. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the warrant of

arrest issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner may be

kept suspended and the petitioner may be given opportunity to appear

before the Magistrate and seek regular bail within such stipulated time.

3. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances

under which she could not earlier appear before the learned

Crl.M.C.No.3068 of 2007 2

Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate

would not consider such application on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or

specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general

directions have already been issued in Alice George v. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police [2003(1) KLT 339].

4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but

with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before the

learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior

notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate

must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously –

on the date of surrender itself.

5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I

direct that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall not

be executed till 19.10.07. The petitioner shall, in the meantime,

appear before the learned Magistrate and seek bail. If the matter is

settled before that, appropriate steps to report

composition/withdrawal can be taken by the parties concerned.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

Crl.M.C.No.3068 of 2007 3