IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 507 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.139/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, DEVICOLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K. BENNY, AGED 40 YEAR.S, PATHIYIL VEEDU, BISON VALLY P.O., RAJAKKAD VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SRI. K.P. BABY, S/O.PHILIPOSE AGED 53 YEARS, KOLAPRAYIL HOUSE, VIRIPARA KARA MANKUKULAM PO, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSEOCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 507 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha. It was numbered initially at the court of the learned CJM, Thodupuzha, and later at the court of the learned JFCM-II, Thodupuzha. While the matter was pending before that court, it appears that a dispute regarding jurisdiction arose and the learned Magistrate returned the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the proper court. The complaint was re-presented before the court allegedly having jurisdiction i.e., the learned JFCM, Devikulam. The same was taken on file. That was numbered and process was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner has not appeared so far. Coercive Crl.M.C. No. 507 of 2009 -: 2 :- processes have been issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate to procure the presence of the petitioner. Such processes are chasing the petitioner now. 2. According to the petitioner, the proceedings initiated against him is unjustified. The return of the complaint after many orders were passed on the judicial side by the learned Magistrate concerned is not justified, it is argued. Admittedly, the order returning the complaint was passed in the presence of the petitioner with the petitioner on the party array. That order remains unchallenged. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge raised now against registering of the case by the court before which the complaint has been re-presented in pursuance of the unchallenged order passed with the petitioner on the party array. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then makes a grievance that though the order returning the complaint was passed as early as on 26/11/07, the same has been re-presented before the learned Magistrate only on 5/2/08. According to the petitioner, the belated re-presentation is unjustified. 4. I have no material before me to ascertain the circumstances under which the complaint was re-presented only on 5/2/08. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all sustainable objections, if any, against Crl.M.C. No. 507 of 2009 -: 3 :- the alleged belated presentation of the complaint and seek appropriate orders/directions from the learned Magistrate. I am not satisfied that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioner at this stage. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the coercive processes issued by the learned Magistrate are chasing the petitioner now. The petitioner has not received any notice, process or summons from the learned JFCM, Devikulam. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioner apprehends that his application for regular bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the learned Magistrate to release him on bail when he appears before the learned Magistrate. 6. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the circumstances under which he could not earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law Crl.M.C. No. 507 of 2009 -: 4 :- and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 7. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar, there shall be a direction that the coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 13/2/09. On or before that date, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 507 of 2009 -: 5 :-