IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 150 of 2008() ------------------------ SC.363/2006 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT( PRINCIPAL SUB COURT), THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- K.RATHEESAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, SHEENVILLA, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.150 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in Crime No.74/2005 of Kannur Town Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 IPC, seeks to quash the proceedings pending before the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery as S.C.No.363/2006. The petitioner would contend that one O.P.Uma, who was allegedly taking medicine for mental illness committed suicide by taking an overdose of the medicine meant for her illness and the only sin committed by the petitioner is that he had filed a complaint against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for realisation of an amount of Rs.1 lakh, since she was a debtor of the petitioner. And if this conduct of the petitioner had triggered a stimulus in the said Uma to commit suicide, the petitioner contends that it will be a travesty of justice to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. I am told that Principal Assistant Sessions Judge is yet to frame charge and yet to Crl.M.C.No. 150 of 2008 2 conduct preliminary hearing under Section 227 Cr.P.C. If so, there is no reason why the petitioner should not address the trial court for a discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Hence leaving the petitioner to the remedy of seeking a discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj