IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 258 of 2009() ------------------------ LPC.121/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- K.RAMESHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS SREE RAGAM, PALAT VAYAL, ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. RAJEEVAN K. S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,KIZHAKKINIYIL HOUSE, PANANKAVU, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.258 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. The petitioner is employed abroad, it is submitted. Knowing that fact fully, a distant relative of the petitioner as the complainant has initiated this prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to vex and harass the petitioner. Non bailable warrants issued by the learned Magistrate are chasing the petitioner. Steps under Sections 80 to 83 Cr.P.C are pending. 2. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. There was no wilful disobedience of the processes of the court by him. He is willing to appear before the learned Magistrate. But as he is employed abroad he is not able to immediately appear before the learned Magistrate. He will appear before the learned Magistrate though his counsel and claim exemption from his personal appearance. But coercive processes against him may not be executed at this juncture, it is prayed. Crl.M.C. No.258 of 2009 2 3. The petitioner has rushed to this Court unnecessarily. In the light of the decision in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16] as explained later in Rohit S.Ved v. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 671], it is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate through a counsel and apply for exemption. Instead of doing that the petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to this Court. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition can only be dismissed with the specific observation that the petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate through counsel and claim the advantage of the decisions in Jain Babu v. Joseph [2008(4) KLT 16] and Rohit S.Ved v. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 671]. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate must consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits. 4. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-