IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 702 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.203/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAGARMAL, AGED 72,S/O.MATHARALAL AGARWAL RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 43/2, KUNBI AWAR, BHAVANI MATHA ROAD, KHANDWA, KHANDWA DISTRICT, MADHYAPREDESH, PIN 450001. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOOD INSPECTOR, ARIMBUR PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR CIRCLE, REPRESENTED BY APP II,THRISSUR. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MOGHAT POLICE STATION, MOGHAT ROAD, KHANDWA DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH, PIN 450001 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, S.P.OFFICE, KHANDWA DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.966 OF 2008 IN CRL.M.C.NO.702 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 29.3.2011 SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.702 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 Order M/s.Matharalal Magarmal Dall Mill was impleaded as third accused in C.C.No.212 of 2001. The first and the second accused in the case were acquitted by the learned Magistrate. The case against the third accused was split up and renumbered as C.C.No.203 of 2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that a non- bailable warrant was issued by the court and making use of that warrant, the 4th respondent is harassing him. According to the petitioner, he has nothing to do with the business concern. Though the prosecution was directed by this court to specify who is the person to represent the firm mentioned as the third accused, no report was filed till this date. The petitioner contends that the non-bailable warrant issued against the firm is threatened to be used against the petitioner, Nagarmal. According to him he is only an ex-partner. It is for the food inspector/complainant to furnish name, address and other particulars of the person in charge of or control of the partnership business described as M/s.Matharalal Magarmal Dall Mill shown as Crl.M.C.702/08 2 4th accused. The learned Magistrate will direct the 2nd respondent/complainant to furnish such particulars so as to issue process/summons against the person mentioned above(the person who was in charge of or control of the business conducted by the firm at the relevant time). When such particulars are furnished by the complainant the learned Magistrate will issue summons to the accused and if he does not turn up the non- bailable warrant can be issued to secure his presence. The non- bailable warrant now pending shall stand recalled. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.702/08 3