IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2686 of 2009() ------------------------- ST.3130/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD OS.210/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ MANOJ,S/O. NARAYANANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 34 YEARS, VANDANAM,12/789, GB ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY, SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, SARITHA NIVAS, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2686 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.T.3130/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-B complaint which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. First respondent is the complainant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as per Annexure-B complaint petitioner issued dishonoured cheque on 16/7/2007 and petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.210/2007 on the file of Additional Munsiff court, Palakkad instituted by first respondent and as per Annexure-A judgment the suit for injunction was dismissed and when the relationship between petitioner and first respondent were not at all cordial from 17/3/2007 onwards, the date of the CRMC 2686/09 2 alleged attempted to trespass, there is no chance for issuance of a cheque on 16/7/2007 and therefore Annexure-B complaint is to be quashed. 3. Based on the existence of a suit between the parties, wherein it is alleged that there was an attempt to trespass by the petitioner, filed by first respondent the complaint cannot be quashed for the reason that granting of cheque is not probable as there was disputes between the parties. It is definitely a matter for evidence. Hence complaint cannot be quashed as sought for. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate at the time of trial. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that learned Magistrate may be directed to release the petitioner on bail on the date of surrender. I find no reason to believe that in a case where accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Magistrate will not grant bail. So also when an accused, against whom a non bailable warrant is pending, surrenders and files an application for bail, Magistrate is expected to pass CRMC 2686/09 3 orders without delay. I find no reason to believe that Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decision of this court or the Apex court or will not act in accordance with law. Hence no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.