IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2905 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.3793/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ BHASKARAN, S/O. ARUMUKHAN, ASWATHY, MUNDOOR DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. PRASSANAN.T.V, S/O. VASU.T.S, THADATHIL HOUSE, KOOTALAKUNNU DESOM PARALLOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2905 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That case has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the prosecution launched against him by the 2nd respondent may be quashed. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, according to the complainant, the transaction was on 17/4/06. A cheque dated 17/4/06 is alleged to be issued on the date of the transaction. On 28/4/06 the cheque is alleged to have been dishonoured by the drawee bank. It is thereafter that the proceedings have been initiated after observing the statutory time table. Crl.M.C. No. 2905 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. The crux of the contention of the petitioner is that the allegations raised are totally false and bereft of even bona fides. According to the petitioner, there was an untoward incident on 23/4/06 in which the respondent/complainant had trespassed into his house and under duress compelled the petitioner and his son to sign certain cheque leaves. They had taken away the signed blank papers also. About that incident, the petitioner had complained to the local C.I. of Police on 24/4/06. The local C.I. of Police had forwarded the said complaint to the local police and on 6/5/06 a crime has been registered. On 24/4/06 itself the petitioner had issued a stop payment memo to his bank. Investigation in that crime is complete. Final report has already been filed. Cognizance has already been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam. It is at that stage that the present complaint under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is preferred before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the police have already investigated into the allegations raised by the petitioner and have found them to be true as seen from the filing of the final report raising allegations against the respondent/complainant herein, the initiation of the proceedings under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act is nothing but a transparent abuse of processes of the court. In these Crl.M.C. No. 2905 of 2008 -: 3 :- circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner may be saved of the undeserved trauma of facing the criminal proceedings by quashing the proceeding invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The allegations and the counter allegations are seen traded by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein in relation to a cheque transaction. It is true that the police have investigated into the crime and have preferred to accept the version of the petitioner herein. But that is too inadequate a reason for this Court, at this stage and in the nature of the materials presently available, to jump to a conclusion that the proceedings against the petitioner are vexatious and the proceedings initiated by the petitioner are true and bona fide. The jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. cannot obviously be invoked to resolve such disputed questions of fact. At the moment and with the available inputs I shall not hazard an opinion as to which set of allegations is correct and which is not. It is for the parties to raise appropriate contentions before the courts concerned and choose to substantiate their contentions and disprove or prove the contentions of the adversary to be not sustainable. I am satisfied that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve Crl.M.C. No. 2905 of 2008 -: 4 :- to be invoked. 5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the option of the petitioner to move the courts concerned to ensure that both cases are disposed of by the same court shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that if the personal appearance of the petitioner – who is said to be a 70 year old person, were insisted by the learned Magistrate ritualistically and unnecessarily, that would cause very great hardship, inconvenience and prejudice to the petitioner. I have no reason to assume that any court would do the same. The petitioner can certainly apply for exemption from personal appearance and, needless to say, the learned Magistrate has to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in the light of the various binding precedents, including Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy/ P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 2905 of 2008 -: 5 :-