IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 1672 of 2007()
1. JAYACHANDRAN.P.R., AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. BHANUDAS.K., S/O.CHAMI.K.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/06/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 1672 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner had filed two private complaints against
two different individuals both making allegations under
Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in both cases. In
one, the accused was Bhanudas – the 2nd respondent herein.
In the other, the accused was one Rajesh.
2. The dispute with the Rajesh was settled. The
petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of the case under
Sec.257 of the Cr.P.C. Both cases were pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as M.Ps. as cognizance had
not been taken. When the application under Sec.257 of the
Cr.P.C. was filed, the Crl.M.P. number was shown wrongly.
Crl.M.P.No.4293/05 is really the number of the case in which
Bhanudas – the 2nd respondent herein is the accused. But in
the withdrawal application to withdraw the case against
CRL.M.C.NO. 1672 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
Rajesh, the number was shown wrongly as Crl.M.C.No.4293/05.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted permission for
withdrawal in Crl.M.P.No.4293/05. That was the case against
the 2nd respondent herein. Thus, the 2nd respondent herein
received an unjustified dismissal of the complaint against him on
account of the wrong quoting of the Crl.M.P. Number, even
though the name of the accused was correctly shown in such
application. The petitioner now finds himself in a very
unsatisfactory situation. He has settled the dispute with Rajesh
and filed an application for withdrawal. He had not settled the
dispute with Bhanudas. Bhanudas has now obtained an
acquittal. It is submitted that later, the case against Rajesh has
been closed and withdrawn.
3. So the resultant incongruity is that though the case
against the 2nd respondent has not been withdrawn, on account
of the erroneous number shown, the case against the 2nd
respondent has been closed. The petitioner has come to this
Court with a prayer that such anomaly/incongruity may be
redressed.
4. The 2nd respondent has not so far appeared before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is submitted. A report of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was called for. The report
CRL.M.C.NO. 1672 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
confirms the facts referred above.
5. The 2nd respondent has thus secured and the petitioner
has suffered an unjustified termination of the proceedings
initiated against the 2nd respondent as Crl.M.P.No.4293/05. The
same deserves to be corrected invoking the extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
Of course, the petitioner was also, in part, responsible in that he
had shown the incorrect number in the application for
withdrawal under Sec.257 of the Cr.P.C. That inadequacy
notwithstanding, I am satisfied that the prayer can be allowed.
6. In the result:
(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
(b) The impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.4293/05 (a copy of
the order is produced as Annexure-D) is hereby set aside.
(c) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall now dispose
of Crl.M.P.No.4293/05 afresh in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge