OP(Crl.) Nos. 162, 163, 164 & 165 of 2017

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938** **OP(Crl.).No. 162 of 2017 (Q) ----------------------------ST. 1008/2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM ----** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------------** **V.ASOK KUMAR, @ M.V ASHOK, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.G. VASUDEVAN, 'THEJAS', VRINDAVAN LANE, AMBALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** **2. IMTHIAS,** **AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.V. MYTHENKUNJU, RUKKIYA GARDENS, KILLIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM 4, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. PRAHLADHAN L., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LEKSHMANAN, MANKUZHI KIHAKKATHIL, MANGADU P.O., KOLLAM - 691 015** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JESTIN MATHEW** **THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2017,ALONG WITH OP (CRL).163/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **SKG** **OP(Crl.).No. 162 of 2017 (Q) -----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST. NO. 1008/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM DATED 06.06.2015** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **----------------------NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **SKG** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** -------------------------------------------------------O.P.(Crl.)Nos.162, 163,164 & 165 of 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of March, 2017 ## _**JUDGMENT**_ The petitioner is the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.1008 of 2015, S.T.No.57 of 2016, S.T.No.97 of 2016 and S.T.No.1007 of 2015, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kollam, instituted on the basis of the respective complaints filed by the second respondent herein. 2. The alleged dishonoured cheques in question is for an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- in each of these cases. The cheques are said to have been issued to the second respondent for arrears of rent owed by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was advised that as per the consistent practice being followed in the trial court, he had to get separate two sureties in each of the four cases and as he was unable to get more than two sureties, he was not in a position to appear before the court below and take bail. This resulted in the issuance of non bailable warrant and such other coercive steps against him. It is averred that the petitioner is ready to settle all the four cases and is willing to be referred to the Mediation Centre. It is averred that since coercive process of warrant is issued against the petitioner and he is unable to appear, he O.P.(Crl.) Nos.162, 163, 164 & 165/2017 2 has preferred these four Original Petitions with prayers to direct the trial court to recall the warrant issued against him and for appropriate orders for enlarging him on bail or to permit him to appear though his counsel etc. in these four cases. 3. Heard Sri.Ayyappan Sankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these cases, and Sri.Jestin Mathew, the learned prosecutor appearing for R1/State. 4. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in these matters, notice to R2/complainant will stand dispensed with. 5. In this regard that this Court in the judgment in _**Oseela Abdul Khaker v. State of Kerala**_ reported in _**2012 (4) KLT 535**_ has considered the issue as to whether the magistrate is correct in remanding an accused, who has offered to give bail for the reason that NBW is pending against such person and that steps under Secs.82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. are also taken such person. Answering this issue, this Court has held that when the accused has surrendered before the magistrate in a bailable offence, in a case relating to bailable offence, it is not proper to pass a drastic order to incarcerate such an accused and that the fact that non bailable warrant has been issued against the accused, in such a case involving bailable offence, then whatever be the justification of such an order, that by itself will not be a ground to O.P.(Crl.) Nos.162, 163, 164 & 165/2017 3 incarcerate the accused. This Court held in that case that the learned Magistrate had in that case evidently has not taken note that where the offence is bailable and the accused, if he offers to give bail, has to be released pending his trial and there is no question of Police officer or court exercising any discretion in granting bail and only choice is of demanding security with surety, etc. and that the only exception that can be made against an accused proceeded of bailable offence would be in a situation covered by sub section (2) of Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C. The fact that the Magistrate has issued NBW against such a accused and proceeded with coercive steps under Secs.82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. is no ground to refuse bail when the offence is bailable and that the accused is entitled to be released on bail as of right. It will be profitable to refer to para 9 of the said decision, which reads as follows: _"9. When the 1[st] petitioner surrendered before the Magistrate I fail to understand why a drastic order to incarcerate her was called for. The fact that a non - bailable warrant has been issued against her in the case whatever be the justification for such an order by itself is not at all a ground to incarcerate her. The offence imputed against her under S.12(1)(b) of the Act contemplates punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or with both. As the offence falls under Clause II of the Ist Schedule to the Code with punishment for less than three years, it is bailable. The learned Magistrate evidently has not taken note that where the offence is bailable the accused if he offers to give bail has to be released pending his trial, and there is no question of the police officer or Court exercising any discretion in granting bail. Only choice is of demanding security with surety. An exception thereto can be made against an accused proceeded_ O.P.(Crl.) Nos.162, 163, 164 & 165/2017 4 _of bailable offence only in a situation covered by sub-section (2) of S.439 of the Code. The Magistrate has issued a non - bailable warrant against such accused and proceeded with coercive steps under S.82 and S.83 of the Code against such accused, is no ground to refuse bail when the offence imputed is bailable and she is entitled to be released on bail as of right."_ 6. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the judgment of the Apex Court in the case _**Rasiklal v. Kishore,**_ reported in _**(2009) 4 SCC**_ ## _**446**_ , wherein it has been held para 9 thereof as follows: _**“9.** As is evident, the appellant is being tried for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code. Admittedly, both the offences are bailable. The grant of bail to a person accused of a bailable offence is governed by the provisions of Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said section reads as under:_ _“436. In what cases bail to be taken.—(1) When any person other than a person accused of a nonbailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail:_ _Provided that such officer or court, if he or it thinks fit, may, and shall, if such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided._ _Explanation.—Where a person is unable to give bail within a week of the date of his arrest, it shall be a sufficient ground for the officer or the court to presume that he is an indigent person for the purposes of this proviso:_ O.P.(Crl.) Nos.162, 163, 164 & 165/2017 5 _Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 116 or Section 446-A._ _(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the court to call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof under Section 446.”_ _There is no doubt that under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to be released on bail pending his trial. As soon as it appears that the accused person is prepared to give bail, the police officer or the court before whom he offers to give bail, is bound to release him on such terms as to bail as may appear to the officer or the court to be reasonable. It would even be open to the officer or the court to discharge such person on his executing a bond as provided in the section instead of taking bail from him."_ The offence alleged against the petitioner is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is bailable. Therefore, going by the provisions contained in Section 436 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the legal principles laid down by this Court and by the Apex Court in the aforequoted judgments, the accused is entitled to be released on bail, and the fact that NBW was issued against the accused or other coercive steps were initiated against him, etc. are no ground to refuse bail. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in O.P.(Crl.) Nos.162, 163, 164 & 165/2017 6 case the petitioner voluntarily surrenders and personally appears before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, in these four cases, within a period of two weeks from the date notified for receiving the certified copy of this order and files appropriate applications in relation to the prayers in these matters, including the applications for grant of bail and recall of warrant in these four cases, then the learned Magistrate shall consider those applications and pass necessary orders thereon in the matter of grant of bail in these four cases on the very same day itself in accordance with law and in the light of the legal principles well settled by the aforestated judgments of this Court and that of the Apex Court and of any other rulings that may be cited by the petitioner as well as the observations made by this Court herein above. In the nature of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is also ordered in the interest of justice that the same set of two individuals was offered as sureties in one case could be permitted to be sureties in all the other three cases as well. Until orders are passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as directed herein above, all further coercive steps taken against the petitioner in pursuance of these cases, will remain under suspension. However, it is ordered that in case the petitioner does not voluntarily surrenders before the learned Magistrate within the time limit fixed in this order, then the benefit of this direction will stand automatically O.P.(Crl.) Nos.162, 163, 164 & 165/2017 7 vacated without any further orders from this Court. 8. As regards the plea of the petitioner to permit him to appear and plea through his counsel, it is ordered that it will be open to the petitioner to file appropriate application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in these four cases and thereupon the learned Magistrate will pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law and in the light of the legal principles well settled by the judgments as in _**Reddy v. M/s.Excel Glasses Ltd. and another**_ reported in _**2010 KHC 548 = 2010 (3) KLT SN 11 Case No.14 = ILR 2010 (3) Kerala 215**_ , _**Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. and others**_ reported in _**AIR 2001 SC 3625** ,_ _**Ajith Kr. Chakraborty and others v. Serampore Municipality**_ reported in _**1989 Crl.L.J.523**_ , etc. 9. As regards the request of the petitioner for directions in the matter of referring the parties to the Mediation Centre, it is ordered that after passing orders as directed herein above in the matter of grant of bail to the petitioner in these cases, the learned Magistrate will ensure that necessary orders are passed to refer the petitioner/accused and the second respondent/complainant to the Kollam District Mediation and Conciliation Centre for expeditious finalisation of the mediation process. If the mediation process is successful, it will be open to the parties O.P.(Crl.) Nos.162, 163, 164 & 165/2017 8 either to seek the option of withdrawal of the complaint and consequent acquittal of the accused under Section 257 of the Cr.P.C. or to seek the benefit of compounding of the offence as envisaged under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the petitioner’s counsel has assured this Court that the petitioner is very earnest to ensure that the entire disputes with the complainant is settled through mediation, the learned Magistrate will take necessary steps to ensure that the parties are referred to the mediator in these four cases, without any further delay. With these observations and directions, all the four Original Petitions (Crl.) will stand finally disposed of. **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** csl