High Court Kerala High Court

Sharmila Ramesh vs Stateo Of Kerala(Sho Dharmadam … on 11 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sharmila Ramesh vs Stateo Of Kerala(Sho Dharmadam … on 11 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 4297 of 2008()


1. SHARMILA RAMESH, W/O.RAMESH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATEO OF KERALA(SHO DHARMADAM POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :11/11/2008

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                 Crl.M.C. Nos.4297 & 4298 of 2008
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008

                                   ORDER

Petitioner, a woman, faces allegations in two separate

prosecutions, both pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate

of the First Class, Thalassery. It is submitted that the petitioner

had entered appearance and was enlarged on bail in both the

cases. But subsequently, allegedly on account of reasons beyond

her control, she could not appear before the learned Magistrate.

Consequently coercive processes have been issued by the

learned Magistrate against the petitioner. Such processes are

chasing the petitioner. She has come to this Court with these

petitions praying for issue of directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C

to the learned Magistrate to comply with the dictum in Alice

George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)

KLT 339] and to consider her application for bail to be filed by

her when she surrenders before the learned Magistrate on

merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously – on the date of

surrender itself.

Crl.M.C. Nos.4297 & 4298 of 2008 2

2. Sufficient general directions have already been issued

in Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

[2003(1) KLT 339]. I am not satisfied that it is necessary for

this Court in every subsequent case to issue directions under

Section 482 Cr.P.C to the Magistracy to follow the dictum in

Alice George v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police .

Every court must do the same. I have no reason to assume that

the same shall not be done. If there be non compliance, the

avenues of challenge/complaint are available for the petitioner.

3. The counsel submits that the petitioner wants to apply

for exemption from her personal appearance. The petitioner can

do the same. The learned Magistrate must dispose of the same

on merits and in accordance with law. No special or more

specific directions appear to be necessary.

4. These Crl.M.Cs are, in these circumstances,

dismissed, but with the above specific observations.

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel

for the petitioner for production before the court below.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-