IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 281 of 2008() ------------------------ ST.1109/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------- MAJEED K., S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, THACHOLI HOUSE, MEPPAYUR P.O., PAYYOLI VIA., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS: STATE/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S. SHRIRAM INVESTMENT LTD.,CALICUT, REP. BY P.A. HOLDER MR.PRAKASH,S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, SREEPADAM BUILDINGS, KOZHIKODE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 281 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken as early as in 2005. At this belated hour, the petitioner has come to this Court on 21/10/08 with a prayer that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act initiated against the petitioner. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the dictum in Sudha Beevi v. State of Kerala (2004 (2) KLT 746) is applied to the facts of this case, the prosecution will have no legs to stand on. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the contrary, refuted the allegations and submits that the cheque in the instant case Crl.M.C. No. 281 of 2008 -: 2 :- was issued for the discharge of the entire outstanding liability after making necessary adjustments for the sale proceeds of the vehicle seized. 3. I am of opinion that at the moment and with the available inputs the factual controversy cannot be resolved. If sufficient facts are established, then, certainly the dictum in Sudha Beevi can be applied. But, at the moment, it is not possible to do the same. The petitioner must raise all relevant contentions and persuade the court to apply the dictum in Sudha Beevi in the light of the facts that are brought out in the course of the trial. I find absolutely no justification in this belated prayer to prematurely terminate the proceedings under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner. 4. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not, in any way, fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the trial. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge