IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4184 of 2011() ------------------------- CMP.NO.1381/2011 IN ST.124/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF), NEDUMANGADU .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- LATHA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.KANAKAMMA, MADATHIL VEEDU, KEEZHCHERIKONAM, KARIPPOORU VILLAGE P.O., NEDUMANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SADASIVAN NAIR, AGED 70 YEARS, POOMUGHATHUPUTHEN VEEDU, VANDA, KARIPOORU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU-695 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMIN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 4184 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, seeking an order to quash Annexure D and F orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Nedumangadu. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.124/2010. The complaint was filed by the first respondent alleging offence under Section 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1381(a)/2011 during the course of trial after closing the evidence for the 1st respondent, seeking an order to reopen the evidence. By Annexure E order, that petition was allowed on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.2,000/- as cost to the first respondent. Since, the petitioner failed to pay the amount, Annexure F order was passed, dismissing the petition. 2. Having gone through the orders impugned, I find no error in Annexure F order to be rectified in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, I find that the petitioner can be given a little more time to comply with Annexure E order. Crl.M.C.No. 4184 of 2011 2 In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure F order would stand quashed on condition that the petitioner shall pay the cost ordered as per Annexure E, within one month, failing which, this petition would stand dismissed. The dispute raised against Annexure D order is left open to the petitioner for agitating in appropriate stage. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE su