IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1547 of 2009() ----------------------------------- OS.1282/2008 of SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MRS. SUJITH ALIAS SUNI, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. KHADIJA BEEVI, AMBARA HOUSE, T.C.NO.14/1350, BAKERY JUNCTION, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KHADIJA BEEVI, AMBARA HOUSE, T.C.NO.14/1350, BAKERY JUNCTION, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (FOR SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). 2. NAZIM A.S., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, CHIERAYIL HOUSE, KALLUVELLI, MANJAMALA, THONNAKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1547 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of May,2009 ORDER Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime 5/2009 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered pursuant to an order passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.22/09 under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegation is that the accused committed offences under section 120B,379,411,463,465 and 471 read with section 34 IPC. Case of the petitioners is that the criminal prosecution is an abuse of process of the court and maliciously instituted as a counterblast to O.S.1282/08 and three cases filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the petitioners is that learned Magistrate should not have Crl.M.C.1547 /2009 2 directed registration of the case which was only a counterblast to the three cases initiated by the petitioner against the second respondent and in such circumstance Annexure A1 FIR and A2 order in the private complaint are to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners were heard. 3. Learned counsel vehemently argued that there is no bona fides in Annexure A2 complaint filed before the Magistrate based on which order was passed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is only a counterblast to O.S.1282/2008 filed by the husband of the first petitioner and also Annexures A3,A4, and A4(a) complaints filed by the first petitioner. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings at the threshold as sought for. The question whether cheque leaves presented and got dishonoured based on which complaints alleging Crl.M.C.1547 /2009 3 commission of offence under section 138 of N.I. Act were filed were stolen and misused or were issued by the second respondent towards repayment of the amount due are matters to be decided, on the evidence, at the time of trial. I find no reason to quash the proceedings at this stage. Crl.M.C is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006