IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 379 of 2009() ------------------------ ST.654/2006 654/2006 OF THE J.F.M.C.-IV, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- V.P.MADHUSUDHANAN PILLAI, M.R.SINGH & COMPANY, K.K.PADMANABHAN ROAD, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. BHARTI CELLULAR LTD, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT H-5/12 QUTAB AMBIANCE, MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3 HAVING KERALA CIRCLE OFFICE AT BHARTI TOWERS,SA ROAD,KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-20,REP.BY P/A MR.ANIL MADATHIMALIL,S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN P.K. MADATHIMALIL,THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 379 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque, it is submitted, is for an amount of Rs.3,000/- only. Notice of demand was received by the petitioner on 17.10.2005, submits the counsel. By two payments made on 23.11.08 and 24.11.2008 the liability under the cheque has been discharged, submits the counsel. In these circumstances the petitioner prays that the prosecution against him may be quashed. 2. Admittedly payment has not been effected within the period stipulated by law. The offence would therefore certainly lie even if the entire version of the petitioner were accepted. The petitioner has no case that the respaondent has settled and compounded the offence. In these circumstances I find no merit in the contention that the prosecution is liable to be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No. 379 of 2009 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may atleast be permitted in the circumstances of the case to avail the benefits of the dicta in Jain Babu v. Joseph (2008 (4) KLT 16) and Rohit S. Ved v. State of Kerala (2008 (3) KLT 748). It is for the petitioner to appear through counsel before the learned Magistrate and seek the benefit of the decisions referred above. If the petitioner appears through counsel and makes such request, the learned Magistrate must consider the totality of circumstances and pass appropriate orders in such application. 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be a direction that the coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till 12.2.2009, on or before which date the petitioner can appear before the learned Magistrate and make necessary application as indicated above. (R. BASANT) Judge tm Crl.M.C.No. 379 of 2009 3