K.Rameshan vs Rajeevan K. on 19 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 258 of 2009()


1. K.RAMESHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAJEEVAN K. S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,KIZHAKKINIYIL
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/01/2009

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                     Crl.M.C. No.258 of 2009
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009

                                  ORDER

Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has not

entered appearance so far. The petitioner is employed abroad, it

is submitted. Knowing that fact fully, a distant relative of the

petitioner as the complainant has initiated this prosecution

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to vex and

harass the petitioner. Non bailable warrants issued by the

learned Magistrate are chasing the petitioner. Steps under

Sections 80 to 83 Cr.P.C are pending.

2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent.

There was no wilful disobedience of the processes of the court by

him. He is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. But

as he is employed abroad he is not able to immediately appear

before the learned Magistrate. He will appear before the

learned Magistrate though his counsel and claim exemption from

his personal appearance. But coercive processes against him

may not be executed at this juncture, it is prayed.

Crl.M.C. No.258 of 2009 2

3. The petitioner has rushed to this Court unnecessarily.

In the light of the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4)

KLT 16] as explained later in Rohit S.Ved v. State of Kerala

[2008 (4) KLT 671], it is for the petitioner to appear before the

learned Magistrate through a counsel and apply for exemption.

Instead of doing that the petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to

this Court. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this

petition can only be dismissed with the specific observation that

the petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate through

counsel and claim the advantage of the decisions in Jain Babu v.

Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16] and Rohit S.Ved v. State of Kerala

[2008 (4) KLT 671]. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate

must consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits.

4. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed with the above

observations.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-