IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2064 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C.376/05 OF JFCM COURT-II, ATTINGAL PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- SHANAVAS, S/O.SHAWKATHALI, PLANKALA VEEDU, KUNNIKODE, PULLAMPARA P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. M.NOUSHAD, S/O.MOHAMMED KASIM, KUNNINVEETTIL, PALAMKONATHU, PULLAMPARA P.O., VENJARAMOODU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2064 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had availed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the defacto complainant and had given a cheque to him to collect the amount from his bank. It is alleged that the signature in the cheque was deliberately affixed in a different manner and the cheque was returned with the endorsement that 'signature differs'. Eventhough there is a prayer for quashing of the prosecution, the said prayer is not pressed seriously and therefore I am not adverting to that aspect in this order. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Reckoning the petitioner as an absconding accused, coercive processes have been issued against him. The petitioner finds such processes issued by the learned Magistrate chasing him. Crl.M.C.No. 2064 of 2008 2 2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent. His absence was not willful or deliberate, but on account of reasons beyond his control. He is willing to surrender before the learned Magistrate, but he apprehends that his application for bail may not be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 3. It is certainly 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 Sessions Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner when he surrenders before the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific direction appears to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have already been issued by this Court in the decision in Alice George v. Dy.S.P. of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 4. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Crl.M.C.No. 2064 of 2008 3 Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously - on the date of surrender itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm