IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3012 of 2008() ------------------------- S.T.NO. 1843/07 OF THE C.J.M. COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER: --------------- H.SALIM, S/O.HAMEEDKUTTY, AGED 28 YEARS, KATTACHIRAKIZHAKKATHIL, KADATHOOR, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.MULAMOOTTIL CONSUMER CREDITS LTD., T.C.9/1419(1), TEMPLE ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 10. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3012 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.22,000/- and bears the date 12.9.2007. Cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned Magistrate so far. He has come to this court with a prayer that the prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I.Act may be quashed invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had entered into a hire purchase agreement and blank signed cheques were handed over to the financier as security for the transaction. The said cheque is now being misutilised to stake a totally false and vexatious claim against the petitioner. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question was repossessed on 26.7.07. Thereafter Annex.A3 Crl.M.C.No. 3012 of 2008 2 notice dt. 27.7.07 was issued to the petitioner by the complainant. According to the petitioner, as per the said notice the balance amount is claimed to be Rs.34,758/- In these circumstances there was no possibility whatsoever of having issued a fresh cheque dt.12.9.07 for another Rs.22,000/- to the complainant. The complaint may hence be quashed, it is prayed. 3. Admittedly the complainant had issued a notice of demand, which was duly served on the petitioner. He did not respond to the notice of demand. The notice of demand is not produced. The reply, if any, is not produced. I am in these circumstances satisfied that it is not possible for this Court now, at the moment and with the available inputs and conscious of the nature of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise, to come to any definite or specific finding that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability or that a blank signed cheque issued earlier allegedly prior to the seizure of the vehicle is being misused to stake a claim for the amount due after the seizure and disposal of the vehicle by the complainant. Crl.M.C.No. 3012 of 2008 3 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that 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. (R. BASANT) Judge tm