IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3599 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.801/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S):COMPLAINANT --------------- M/S.BENHUR TRADES & INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.B.PRAKASH KUMAR. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE --------------- 1. K.R.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.LATE K.K.RAMAN, KOLAVELI HOUSE, PALAPARAMBU ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682 025. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3599 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Trial has commenced. The complainant was examined in chief and cross examined. Once the complainant was recalled for further cross examination and that was allowed. The accused again applied to recall the complainant for further cross examination. The purpose was to confront the complainant with two documents. The learned Magistrate on the second time also allowed the application. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. Such luxury of further opportunity is undeserved. Such an opportunity need not be given at all. The purpose stated is not correct. The transparent purpose is vexation and harassment of the complainant. In these circumstances powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the order, it is prayed. The order as such is not produced. The order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate shows that the said petition was allowed. 2. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that there is any vice vitiating the direction to the complainant to be present again for cross examination which should persuade me to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Crl.M.C. No.3599 of 2008 2 3. The counsel submits that the complainant would suffer needless hardship and inconvenience if his presence is so insisted on all dates of posting. I need only mention that PW1 need appear only on one day to facilitate cross examination. Thereafter he can be permitted to be represented by his counsel. On the stipulated day when he appears, his cross examination has to be completed and he should not be vexed again. The learned Magistrate must ensure all these. It is further pointed out that the case has been unnecessarily dragging on from 2005. Appropriate observations can be made in that behalf also. The learned Magistrate must ensure that the case is disposed of as expeditiously as possible - at any rate within a period of 30 days from the date on which the complainant is so further cross examined. 4. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. 5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the above observations/directions. 6. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-