IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27/08/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
CRL.O.P.NO.24895 OF 2001
AND
CRL.M.P.NO.8626 OF 2001
A.V.Bhaskaran .. Petitioner
-Vs-
N.Mohan
S/o Narayanan
Authorised Signatory
Divyanga Enterprises
8, Ganapathy II Street
Avvai Nagar
Thiruvanmiyur
Chennai-600 041 .. Respondent
This criminal original petition is preferred under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 30.10.2001 of the learned Judicial
magistrate No.2, Coimbatore in CMP No.8912 of 2001 in C.C.No.585 of 2001.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Raghunathan
^For Respondent : Service awaited
:ORDER
The petitioner herein aggrieved over the issuance of Non Bailable
Warrant has brought forth this petition seeking to set aside the same.
2. From the averments made by the learned Counsel Mr.A.Raghunathan, a
private complaint was lodged by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. It was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
No.2, Coimbatore in C.C.No.585 of 2001 and the same is also pending.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there were eight accused
in this case. The petitioner herein was shown as A-6. The petitioner herein
and the accused No.4 did not appear before the trial court on the first day
and the counsel, who appeared for them, has filed an application under Section
317 of Cr.P.C. to condone their absence along with vakalat. Despite receipt
of summons, he did not appear before the court on that day. The trial court
instead of entertaining the application and condoning the delay, has dismissed
the same and issued Non Bailable Warrant. Hence, aggrieved over the
petitioner has brought forth this petition.
3. Added further the learned counsel that a similar O.P. was filed
by A-4 in Crl.O.P.No.24774 of 2001, which came before this Court and this
Court by an order dated 20.6.2003 set aside the issuance of Non bailable
warrant. As could be seen from the materials available, it was a case filed
under Section 138 of N.I. Act stating that a cheque was issued by the first
accused Company, where the other accused are the Directors and when the cheque
was placed for encashment, the same was dishonoured. A statutory notice was
issued and the non compliance of the demand made therein led the complainant
to lodge a private complaint, which was taken cognizance by the trial court as
referred to above.
4. As could be seen from the materials available and the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though on the first day an
application was filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. to condone the absence of
A-6, the trial court has issued Non bailable warrant. It is pertinent to
point out that si x more accused were yet to be served summons to appear
before the court. Under the stated circumstances, if the accused A-6 was
present in Court, nothing would further progress in the matter.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is
of the view that a direction has got to be issued to the petitioner to appear
before the lower Court on or before 29.9.2003, and on that date, he shall file
an application for recalling the warrant, and the lower Court shall pass
orders withdrawing the said warrant on imposing some conditions to ensure the
presence of the petitioner in the future hearings. Accordingly, a direction
is issued. 6. It is stated that the matter is of the year 2001. Hence,
the lower Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as
possible.
7. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.
Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is closed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
vvk
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.2
Coimbatore