IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 320 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRL.RP.1/2006 OF SESSION COURT, THRISSUR. C.M.P.7084/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS/REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SATHYAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, CHALAKKUDI DESOM AND VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. AMBIKA, W/O.T.G. SATHYAN, SANDEEP NIVAS, IRRIGATION QUARTERS, P.O.CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NANDANAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALAKKAL DESOM, PALISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.320 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioners challenge the order of learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2006 confirming the order of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur on C.M.P.No.7084 of 2005 in C.C.No.1149 of 2004. Initially, respondent No.1 filed a complaint against petitioners for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and after examination of PW2 and Ext.P7 was marked. Respondent No.1 filed C.M.P.No.7084 of 2005 to add a charge under Sec.420 of the Penal Code as well. Learned Magistrate allowed that petition which the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed. It is contended in this proceeding that offence punishable under Sec.420 of the Penal Code would not stand and that the procedure adopted by learned Magistrate is not correct. However, after arguing the matter for some time learned counsel has requested permission to withdraw the petition without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take appropriate defence in the trial court. 2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor I am inclined to allow the request. Crl.M.C.No.320 of 2011 -: 2 :- Resultantly this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take appropriate defence in the trial court as provided under law. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-