Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of by a common order under Section 482...

Manuel George v. State of Kerala and The Thidanadu Service Co-Operative Bank Limited (CRL.M.C. Nos.10817,10836 & 10932 of 2023)

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. Nos.10817,10836 & 10932 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. KunhikRishnan
Judgment Date
2023-12-18
Court Decision / Holding
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of with common directions: (i) The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional court within three weeks from today; if an application for bail with an advance copy to the prosecutor is filed at the time of surrender, the jurisdictional court shall consider it and pass appropriate orders, ideally on the date of surrender itself; (ii) Coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to appear before the court below and have the bail application adjudicated; (iii) The decisions on the quashing prayer, if any, shall be left in the course of the trial court’s consideration of the merits.”,
Final Disposition
Disposed of by a common order under Section 482 CrPC; main prayer to quash the proceedings was considered in light of bail-related directions. The court directs surrender, bail consideration on surrender, and stay of coercive steps for three weeks, leaving the quash issue to be resolved through subsequent trial proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Manuel George

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
  • The Thidanadu Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No. 3990, Chemmalamattom P.O., Kottayam Dist., represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • C.S. Bissimmon
  • • Denny Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri HRITHWIK CS, PP
  • • Sri M.P. Prasanth, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

These three connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases arise under Section 482 CrPC and relate to quashing proceedings in ST Nos.1328/2014, 1327/2014 and 1329/2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta, involving Manuel George as the petitioner. The High Court, while admitting the petitions for hearing, treats the issues collectively and reviews the propriety of initiating criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly Section 138, on the face of the allegations. The court records the rival submissions: the petitioner contends that even if all facts are assumed true, the Section 138 offence would not be attracted and that the issuance of an arrest warrant could lead to remand without consideration of bail, infringing personal liberty; the Public Prosecutor counters that no coercive directions are warranted and that bail decisions should be left to the trial court. Citing established precedents, including Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi and Biju S. Praveen, the court emphasizes the need for careful, judicial consideration of bail and the protection of personal liberty. Ultimately, the court disposes of the Cr.M.Cs by directing the petitioner to surrender within three weeks, with bail to be considered on surrender, and coercive proceedings kept in abeyance for three weeks, while leaving the quash question to be addressed in the course of the trial court proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Personal liberty of an accused must be safeguarded; bail applications should be decided promptly and ideally on the same day.
  • Judicial mind must be applied in bail determinations; remand cannot be routine or punitive.
  • Criminal Courts should exercise caution to avoid unnecessary incarceration pending trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that even if the facts alleged are accepted, the offence under Section 138 NI Act would not be attracted; the material facts and the sufficiency of the complaint require scrutiny, and the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to prevent an abuse of process. The risk of remand merely because a warrant issued, and the absence of timely bail consideration, violates the accused’s personal liberty. Since the matter involves potential quashing of proceedings, the trial court should not be compelled to remand without an opportunity to hear bail, and the court should ensure that bail, if sought, is considered promptly on surrender. The remedy sought is a preventive one, and the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to protect due process and personal liberty while leaving the merits for the trial court.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no need for the High Court to direct bail or interfere with the lower court’s bail decisions; the proper forum to evaluate the bail application is the trial court. It was argued that the allegations under Section 138 of the NI Act may require careful fact-finding and legal interpretation, but the High Court should refrain from interfering at the stage of quashing. The bank’s advocate highlighted that quashing the proceedings would deprive the state of a chance to prosecute a potentially maintainable case, and that the trial court should be allowed to determine the validity of the complaint and the bail status in light of the evidentiary record.”},

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi v. State of Kerala and another2009 (3) KHC 471PositiveThe High Court relies on the dictum from Vineeth Somarajan to stress that bail decisions should consider personal liberty and be addressed promptly, rather than remanding for punitive reasons.
Biju S. Praveen v. State of Kerala and Another2007 (2) KLT 280PositiveThe court aligns with the dictum in Biju S. Praveen on cautious bail handling and avoiding remand without mindful consideration, citing the need for judicial scrutiny of bail in liberty matters.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Manuel George v. State of Kerala and The Thidanadu Service Co-Operative Bank Limited (CRL.M.C. Nos.10817,10836 & 10932 of 2023) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 10817 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ST 1328/2014 OF JUDICIAL ``` ``` MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:`** ## **`MANUEL GEORGE`** ``` AGED 70 YEARS, VELLOOKKUNNEL HOUSE, KONDOOR VILLAGE, CHETTUTHODU P.O., PIN - 686508 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` C.S.BISSIMON DENNY VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT(S):`** - **`1 STATE OF KERAL REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018`** - **`2 THE THIDANADU SERVICE CO -OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 3990, CHEMMALAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686508`** ## **`BY ADV.`** ## **`SRI HRITHWIK CS, PP`** ## **`THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION`** ``` ON 18.12.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.10836/2023, 10932/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 10836 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ST 1327/2014 OF ``` ``` JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA PETITIONER( S )/ACCUSED: MANUEL GEORGE AGED 70 YEARS, VELLOOKKUNNEL HOUSE, KONDOOR VILLAGE, CHETTUTHODU P.O., PIN - 686508 ``` ``` BY ADV C.S.BISSIMON ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S ) :`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THIDANADU SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 3990, REP BY SECRETARY CHEMMALAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686508`** ## **`BY ADV.`** ## **`SRI HRITHWIK CS, PP`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON18.12.2023,ALONGWITH Crl.MC.10817/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` 3 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 10932 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ST 1329/2014 OF ``` ``` JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA ``` ``` PETITIONER( S )/ACCUSED: ``` ``` MANUEL GEORGE ``` ``` AGED 70 YEARS, VELLOOKKUNNEL HOUSE, KONDOOR VILLAGE, CHETTUTHODU P.O., PIN - 686508 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` C.S.BISSIMON DENNY VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA`** - **`REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE THIDANADU SERVICE CO -OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 3990, CHEMMALAMATTOM P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686508`** ## **`BY ADV. SRI. M.P. PRASANTH, PP`** ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON18.12.2023,ALONGWITH Crl.MC.10817/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos.10817,10836 & 10932 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of December, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases by a common order. 3. The main prayer in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are to quash the proceedings in ST No.1328/2014, 1327/2014 and 1329/2014 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta. It is the proceedings initiated under ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence is not attracted. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate issued a warrant to the petitioner and the petitioner apprehend that, if he surrender before the court below, the learned Magistrate may remand him, without considering his bail application. 4. The Public Prosecutor submitted that no such apprehension is necessary and this court may not pass any direction to the lower court to release the petitioner on bail and that is a matter to be decided by the trial court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for some time, I am of the considered opinion that the contentions raised in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are to be raised before the trial court, at the appropriate ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** stage. But, as far as the warrant issued is concerned, the petitioner can surrender before the court below and there can be appropriate direction to the trial court to consider the bail application. 6. This court in **Vineeth Somarajan @ Ambadi v. State of Kerala and another (2009 (3) KHC 471)** relied on the dictum laid down by another learned Single Judge in **Biju S. Praveen v. State of Kerala and Another (2007 (2) KLT 280) considered this point.** It will be better to extract the relevant portion of **Vineeth Somarajan** 's case (supra). “14. The apprehension of the petitioner is that if he appears before the Trial Court, he would be remanded to judicial custody. In **Biju v. State of Kerala, 2007 KHC 3436 : 2007 (2) KLT 280 : 2007 (1) KLJ 713 : ILR 2007 (2) Ker. 26 : 2007 (1) KLD 486,** Justice A. K. Basheer, after noticing the practice that is being followed by some learned Magistrates (vide paragraph 16) held at paragraph ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` 7 ## 18 thus: '18. As mentioned earlier, Criminal Courts should always be careful while passing orders on bail applications which in effect deal with personal liberty. In cases where the Court decides to send an accused to custody pending trial, it must be ensured that the Court applies its mind judicially and judiciously with particular reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that the accused had failed to respond to a summons or that the Court had to issue non bailable warrant to compel his presence will not ipso facto empower the Criminal Court to remand the accused to custody as a punitive measure when he appears before the Court on his own volition or is produced in execution of the warrant. The bail application that may be moved on his behalf has to be considered and orders should be passed on the same day itself since personal liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed in a whimsical or disdainful manner.' I am in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down in **Biju v. State of Kerala.** ” ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 7. In the light of the above dictum laid down by this Court, I think the apprehension of the petitioner that the jurisdictional court will remand the accused without application of mind is unnecessary. Therefore, these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are disposed of with the following directions: 1) The petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional court within three weeks from today. If an application for bail with advance copy to the prosecutor concerned is filed at the time of surrender by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, in accordance with law, ideally on the date of surrender itself. 2) In order to enable the petitioner to ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** appear before the court below, coercive proceedings pending against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks. Sd/- nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10836/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST 1327/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASSMAGISTRATECOURT, ERATTUPETTA ANNEXURE A2NOTICE DATED 20/05/2014 ANNEXURE A3COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 09/11/2023 ISSUED FROM TRAVANCOREMEDICALCOLLEGE HOSPITAL ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` 11 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10932/2023`** |`PETITIONER`|`ANNEXURES`||| |---|---|---|---| |`ANNEXURE 1`|`CERTIFIED`|`COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN`|| ||`ST 1329/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST`||| ||`CLASS`|`MAGISTRATE`|`COURT,`| ||`ERATTUPETTA.`||| |`ANNEXURE 2`|`NOTICE DATED 20-05-2014`||| |`ANNEXURE 3`|`COPY OF `|`THE DISCHARGE `|`SUMMARY`| ||`DATED 09/11/2023 ISSUED `||`FROM`| ||`TRAVANCORE`|`MEDICAL`|`COLLEGE`| ||`HOSPITAL`||| |`ANNEXURE 4`|`PHOTOCOPY `|`OF THE RESOLUATION`|| ||`NUMBER 681`|`DATED 14-03-2016`|| ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.10817,10836 & 10932 OF 2023 ``` 12 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10817/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST 1328/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASSMAGISTRATECOURT, ERATTUPETTA. ANNEXURE A2NOTICE DATED 20-05-2014 ANNEXURE A3COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 09/11/2023 ISSUED FROM TRAVANCOREMEDICALCOLLEGE HOSPITAL ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE