IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3010 of 2007()
1. CHAMA PARAMBATH C.P.IBRAHIM HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ACHAN KANDI MUHAMMEDALI HAJI,
... Respondent
2. MALOCHAL MUHAMMED, S/O. KUNHABDULLA,
3. KARIYATT KUNHAMMED HAJI, S/O.
4. C.K.MOHANAN, S/O. KUMARAN,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :28/09/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3010 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He is the
complainant in a private complaint wherein he has allegedly
committed offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420 and
471 of the IPC. The complainant in the prosecution under
Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the 4th accused in
the prosecution under Sec.420 of the IPC. Both cases are
pending before the same court – the learned Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, Nadapuram.
2. According to the petitioner, the two cases are in the
nature of a case and counter case. Assertions of the
complainant in one case will be the defence of the accused in
the other case. In this view of the matter, they are akin to a
Crl.M.C. No. 3010 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
case and counter case. The petitioner therefore wants both
cases to be reckoned as a case and counter case and disposed of
simultaneously by the same Magistrate.
3. It appears to me to be elementary that the two cases
must be disposed of by the same judicial mind in accordance
with the principles of trial and simultaneous disposal of a case
and counter case. Why has the petitioner come to this Court
now? Did he request the learned Magistrate to take up the two
cases together and dispose them of simultaneously one after the
other in succession? Admittedly, no such request/application
has been made.
4. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned
Magistrate, if he is apprised of the pendency of both the cases
before him, will not take up both the cases together reckoning
them as cases in the nature of a case and counter case. It is for
the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the
learned Magistrate, if an oral submission were found to be
inadequate.
5. In these circumstances, I do not think it necessary to
issue any directions in this Crl.M.C. But I do observe that the
petitioner can bring the facts to the notice of the learned
Magistrate by making appropriate submissions and by filing a
Crl.M.C. No. 3010 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
proper petition making the said request. Needless to say, the
learned Magistrate must consider such request on merits and
take appropriate decision.
6. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge