High Court Kerala High Court

Housing Development Finance … vs Abdul Gafar M And Another on 4 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Housing Development Finance … vs Abdul Gafar M And Another on 4 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.A.No. 2440 of 2008()



1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. ABDUL GAFAR M AND ANOTHER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.GEORGE(ONAKKOOR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/12/2008

 O R D E R
                           R BASANT, J.

           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           Crl.Appeal No. 2440, 2441 & 2442 OF 2008
           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Dated this the 04th day of December, 2008

                          J U D G M E N T

The appellant in the appeals is the complainant in three

prosecution u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by

him against different accused persons. Process has not been

issued yet and the case is at the stage of cognizance. There was a

controversy as to whether the mandatory enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C.

ought to be conducted or not in the light of the amendment 202 of

Cr.P.C. The appellant had come before this court with a prayer to

invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C against an order of

the learned Magistrate. The decision in that case is reported in

HDFC V. Jaleel (2008 (3) KLT 861) . The judgment in that case was

pronounced on 31.07.08. The appellant wanted to prosecute his

case in accordance with the said decision. But he did not got

certified copies. On 07.08.08 the learned Magistrate was pleased to

pass identical order in these prosecutions by which the complaints

were dismissed. The dismissal is purportedly done invoking the

jurisdiction u/s 256 of Cr. P.C., though process had not been issued

till then.

2. It is unnecessary to delve deeper into the controversy.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was not

granted time to produce the certified copy of the judgment rendered

on 31.07.08. The said grievance seems to be legitimate, I am

satisfied that the learned Magistrate must be directed to dispose of

the complaints afresh in accordance with law.

3. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The learned

Magistrate is directed to dispose of all the three complaints filed by

the appellant afresh in accordance with law.

Hand over copy.

(R BASANT, JUDGE)

KMD