IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4111 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.294/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN C.C.: --------------------------------------------- SALIM KUMAR, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL VEEDU, NEAR ATHANI JUNCTION, MANNAM, PARAVOOR TALUK BY ADV. SMT.A.THEJOMAYEE DEVI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN C.C.: --------------- KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JV CRMC NO: 4111/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: A1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND F.I.R. DATED 20.11.2006. A2: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 02.01.2007 ISSUED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KOCHI CUSBA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JV N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4111 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 Order The petitioner is the accused in CC No.294 of 2007 on the file of JFCM Court-II, Kochi. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he did not receive any summons from the court. Earlier he was called to the office of the Circle Inspector of Police, Palluruthy for a compromise. According to the petitioner, as suggested by the Circle Inspector, he agreed to give the amount to the defacto complainant from 9.12.2006 onwards. Except the averments stated in paragraph 4 of the petition, there is nothing on record to show that any such agreement was entered into. The case was taken on file by the learned Magistrate in the year 2007. If the petitioner did not receive summons, he can convince the learned Magistrate of that fact. It is reported that the proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. also. Now, Crl.M.C.4111/11 2 the only request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate may be directed to dispose of the bail application on the same day. Such a direction cannot be issued in the light of the Division Bench decision of this court in Martin v. State of Kerala (2004(2) KLT 1037). The petitioner can surrender before the learned Magistrate within ten days from today. He will convince the learned Magistrate as to the reason for his absence and that he did not receive summons. The learned Magistrate will dispose of the bail application as expeditiously as possible. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.4111/11 3 Crl.M.C.4111/11 4