IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 23 of 2010() ----------------------- ST.281/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- L.WILSON, AVIKUZHI VEEDU, OLATHANNI, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CHAIRMAN, MARY MATHA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PALIYODE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.GEORGE, S/O.VARKEY, KAITHAALLIL HOUSE, NEDIYASALA, PO THODUPUZHA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 23 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 6th day of January,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.281/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint and the cognizance taken contending that learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case and in any case when there is no compliance with the procedure provided under section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act as petitioner is the Chairman of Mary Matha group of institutions, the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. It was contended that learned Crl.M.C.23/2010 2 Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. The question whether learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to try the case is to be decided based on the evidence. I do not find any reason to quash the complaint as sought for at this stage. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions before the Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there may be a direction to the Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail. It is upto the petitioner to surrender and apply for bail. I do not find any reason to believe that Magistrate will not release the petitioner on bail, when the offence alleged is only under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006