IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4426 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.542/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- AMBOOKAN JOSE VAKKACHAN, AGED 47 SON OF LATE MR.JOSE AMBOOKAN RESIDING AT LAKE VIEW, POYYA PO. MALA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. E.M. RAJEEV, AGED 51, SON OF MR.MADHAVAN ERAMATH HOUSE, CHOWARA PO, ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM DIST. 683 571. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4426 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 O R D E R In this Crl.M.C. the petitioner prays that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. Cognizance was taken in that case as early as in 2003 as is indicated by the number assigned to the case i.e. C.C. 542 of 2003. In reply to a specific query by this Court, the counsel for the petitioner concedes that the trial in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Act has already commenced. 3. I am, in these circumstances, not at all persuaded that the plea of limitation, which the petitioner appears to have raised in defence, can or need be considered at this stage by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the prosecution initiated against the petitioner. He has no explanation as to why he has waited till now – after the Crl.M.C.No. 4426 of 2008 2 commencement of the trial – to come before this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition shall not fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise the plea of limitation in the trial, which has already commenced. I choose to take the view only that the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. need not be invoked to consider that plea. (R. BASANT) Judge tm