IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1961 of 2009() ------------------------- CMP NO.7908/08 IN ST 648/06 OF JDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- MATHEW J VADAKKAN, VADAKKAN HOUSE, ANTHINADU, PRAVITHANAM,NEAR BLOCK OFFICE. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. K.A.CHANDY, KIZHAKKEVELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, EDAPPALLY. 2. SALIYAMMA THOMAS, W/O.K.A.CHANDI, KIZHAKKEVELIKKAKATHU VEEDU,EDAPPALLY. 3. STATE OF KERAL, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dkr M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1961 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.648/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. The original complainant died. His widow filed CMP No.7908/2008 for permission to continue the prosecution. As per Annexure A1 order, Magistrate permitted the widow to continue the proceedings. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order contending that what is stated by the widow and their legal heirs in their affidavits is that the cheque is for Rs.2,70,000/- instead of Rs.2,73,000/- as originally pleaded in the complaint and therefore the Magistrate should not have allowed the application. 2. Irrespective of what is stated by the widow, the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque is shown in the Crl.M.C.No.1961/2009 -2- cheque. If case of the petitioner is that consideration shown in the dishonoured cheque is not correct and the case of the widow stated in CMP No.7908/2008 or in the evidence destroy the original case pleaded in the complaint, it can be canvassed before the Magistrate at the time of evidence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. Petitioner is entitled to take the defence at the time of trial. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr