IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 477 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.386/2004 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------ PRAJEESH.O.P., CHALATH HOUSE, NEAR RETNA PRESS, AHIYOOR (P.O), KOZHIKODE, NOW WORKING IN LAL TRADERS, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-17. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.K.P.HARISH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAVI KURUNNON, RAJA'S JUMS, MAIN ROAD, THALASSERY. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SUMANGALA.P.N. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO.477/2008-F: ORDER ON CRL.M.P. NO. 632/2008 IN CRL.M.C.NO.477/2008-F DISMISSED 29/03/2011. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.477 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 Order The petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.523 of 2003 of J.F.C.M., Thalassery. The case against A1 and A2 was quashed by this court as per Annexure-AV (Crl.M.C.No.2095/04). Thereafter, case against this petition was split up and renumbered as C.C.No.386 of 2004 which is now pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The case of the complainant who is the second respondent in this case is that signed blank cheque leaf left by the 2nd respondent in his office was made use of by the petitioner herein who was then the manager of the second respondent in the conduct of his business and that the petitioner herein colluded with Smt.V.C.Kamalakshy, the complainant in S.T.R.Case No.6 of 1998 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Mahe. It was stated that T.K.Sjithkumar, son of V.C.Kamalakshy (who was also the Power of Attorny Holder of V.C.Kamalakshy) also colluded with in foisting the case STR No.6 of 1998, making use of the signed blank cheque leaf left in the office of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that this petitioner and Crl.M.C.477/08 2 others committed offences punishable under Sections 416, 420, 467 and 471 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against this petitioner and two other accused. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent herein faced the trial in STR Case No.6 of 1998 evidenced by Annexure-AI and during the pendency of that case he did not seek any stay of the trial of that case, but contested that case and suffered a verdict against him. It is also stated that all the contentions raised in Annexure-AII complaint were raised in Annexure-AI case. After analysing the evidence adduced by the parties to that case, that case was decided finding the second respondent guilty under Section 138 of the N.A.Act and he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. Learned counsel submits that the conviction and sentence passed in that case was not challenged by the second respondent. Whatever that be, all the contentions raised by the second respondent in the case on hand were raised in S.T.R.Case No.6 of 1998. 3. The only allegation, according to the petitioner made against him is that while he was working as manager of the Crl.M.C.477/08 3 second respondent, he had taken a signed blank cheque leaf and given it to Smt.Kamalakshy, the complainant in S.T.R.Case No.6 of 1998. Since those contentions were not accepted in S.T.R.Case No.6 of 1998, it is futile for the second respondent now to contend otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits. The learned counsel further relied upon the order passed by this court in Annexure-AV also. It was found by this court in Annexure-AV that the allegations raised by the second respondent stood repelled as per the judgment in S.T.R.Case No.6 of 1998 and that C.C.No.386 of 2004 was filed only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. In view of the order of this court in Crl.M.C.No.2095 of 2004 and the judgment in S.T.R.Case No.6 of 1998, I find that C.C.No.386 of 2004 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery is only to be quashed. Accordingly, I quash C.C.No.386 of 2004 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. The Crl. M.C. is allowed as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.477/08 4