IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3009 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.312/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HARIPAD ................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2: ----------------------------------------- C.R.S.PILLAI, CHERIARACKAL VEEDU, KANJOOR MURI, CHEPPADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/ STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VASUMATHI DEVARAJAN, W/O.DEVARAJAN, MANAKKATTU KOCHU VEEDU, EVOOR THEKKUM MURI, PATTIYOOR VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI L.G. SURESH BABU R2 BY ADVS SRI. S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl. M.C. No.3009/2008 -2- ORDER ON CRL. M.A. No. 4258/2008 IN CRL. M.C. No.3009/2008 DISMISSED N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. 11-04-2011 // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 3009 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No.312/2008 of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Harippad. Annexure-A1 complaint was filed against the petitioner and M.R. Vijayan alleging offence under Sections 379, 381, 411, 465, 467, 471 and 472 read with Section 34 IPC. It was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. After conducting investigation charge sheet was laid against the petitioner and 1st accused alleging offences under section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on going through the entire complaint and the statements of two witnesses recorded by the police officer there is allegation only against the 1st accused that he had stolen away 60 cheque leaves. The relevant portions of Annexure-A1 complaint and the statement of the witnesses relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the case have been shown to me. Even if the allegations are taken in entirety and accepted Crl. M.C.No.3009/2008 -2- at its face value by the Court, still I find there is no material to connect the petitioner who is arrayed as the second accused. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a suit against the complainant Firm and the 1st accused for realization of the amount covered by the cheque issued to the petitioner and that annexure-A1 complaint was filed to wriggle out of that liability. As said above, even if the entire allegations are accepted still there is nothing to show that the petitioner had stolen the cheque leaves or to show that there was meeting of minds between the petitioner and the 1st accused. In view of what is stated above, prosecution as against the petitioner (2nd accused) would be an abuse of process of court. Hence the case CC No.312/2008 as against the petitioner herein alone stands quashed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE AMG