P.K. Koyakutty vs State of Kerala and Moitheen

V.K. Mohanan, J.—The petitioner who is the accused in S.T. No. 242 of 2012 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakkanchery aggrieved by the institution of the case, preferred the above Crl. M.C. u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. stating that the trial court has committed a mistake in taking cognizance upon the complaint preferred by the respondent herein since Annexure-A13 notice is not valid. In support of this contention, the petitioner very much relied upon the decision reported in Sadanandan Bhadran Vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, . Now the position is settled by the recent decision of the Apex Court in MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan and Another, wherein the Apex Court has held that the non filing of complaint after first dishonour and first statutory notice does not tantamount to absolution of the offender or forfeiture of the right to claim. Thus the position is crystal clear that even a complaint can be, properly constituted upon a notice issued on the second time, though no complaint was filed after issuing the first notice. Therefore the grounds raised by the petitioner in the above Crl. M.C. no longer treated as a valid ground in the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan and Another, . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that S.T. No. 242 of 2012 was instituted in the court below on the basis of the power of attorney executed in favour of one Suhara, aged 42, W/o. Yousuf, Pulicharan House, Paranoor P.O. Thrissur 690001. But the said power of attorney is canceled if the petitioner has got such a contention it is free to raise the said facts and contentions before the court below and seek appropriate orders.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit.