IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 334 of 2009() -------------------------------------- (AGAINST S.T.NO.1736/2005 OF JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERY) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- MANOJ BABU K.G., S/O. K.P. GEEVARGHESE, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, KANINADU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.R. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. P.K. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, PUTHENPURACKAL MADATHIL, CHEMMANADU KARA, BHAKTANANDAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.334 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2005. The crux of the allegations is that the cheque issued by the petitioner to the complainant was dishonoured on the basis of a stop payment memo issued by the petitioner. It is specifically averred that the stop payment memo was issued by the accused wilfully to defeat the claim of the complainant. The submissions made at the Bar reveal that the petitioner had entered appearance as early as in 2006. Why is it that the petitioner has come before this court at this juncture in 2009? What was the petitioner doing all the while? No satisfactory or effective answers are received except the submission that the matter was dragging on not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases in the interests of justice. Such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction has to be Crl.M.C.No. 334/09 2 invoked only in aid of justice. I find no justification in the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This case was initiated as early as in 2005 and the petitioner had entered appearance in 2006. He has not raised any objection so far against the taking of cognizance. 2. I am of the opinion that the petitioner must be left to raise all his contentions before the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate final orders in this prosecution. Piece meal consideration of each contention does not appear to be necessary. 3. I have considered the nature of the contention that the petitioner wants to raise. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion or render any authentic decision on the question raised now. The only contention raised is that there is no specific averment in the complaint that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The very specific case of the complainant appears to be that “stop payment memo was issued wilfully to defeat the claim of the complainant” and thus make the entire amount available in the account unavailable to honour the cheque. I have referred to the Crl.M.C.No. 334/09 3 contention only to signify that I have taken note of the nature of the contentions. But I am not persuaded to agree that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked at this stage. 4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but with the specific observation that the the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of the trial and seek decisions on such contentions. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 334/09 4 Crl.M.C.No. 334/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008