IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 393 of 2010() ------------------------ CRRP.181/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP 144/09 IN CC.1623/2007 of JFCM-VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- ASHOK KUMAR, A.R NILAYAM, ANTHIYOORKONAM, KOLLODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. NARAYANAN POTTY, TC 28/1168, RAJAMANDIRAM, SREEKANTESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 393 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the complaint filed by the second respondent herein. 2. The second respondent laid a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-VI, Thiruvananthapuram alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as C.C. No.1623 of 2007. Summons was issued to the accused. The accused challenges the order of the Magistrate as well as the entertainment of the complaint. 3. According to the petitioner, he says that the address in which the notice was sent was wrong and on that sole ground the proceedings will have to be quashed. It is also pointed out that it is not averred by the complainant that whether notice had been sent in Crl.M.C.393/2010. 2 the correct address. That is also a ground to quash the complaint. 4. It is seen that both these grounds were urged before the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P. 181 of 2009. The Sessions Court had considered the matter in detail and held that it is not possible to entertain these contentions now and giving liberty to the petitioner to urge the contentions before the trial court, the revision petition was dismissed. There is no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.