IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3880 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.2552/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: 1 -------------- BABY GIRIJA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNAKUMAR, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, VADKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.C.S.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. MARY THOMAS, W/O. M.K.THOMAS KALLOOPARAMBIL THOPPIL HOUSE, PALLOM P.O. KOTTAYAM. 2. GEORGE.M. THOMAS, KALLOOPARAMBIL THOPPIL HOUSE, PALLOM P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008,ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASE,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos. 3880 and 3887 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Against the petitioners/accused/spouses, respondents/complainants/spouses have initiated prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. The learned CJM took cognizance and made over the case to the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam. Before that court trial in the cases have commenced in the sense that the chief affidavit has already been filed. The matter has been posted for cross examination of the complainant, it is submitted. 2. It is not disputed that the CJM, Kottayam, [who had originally taken cognizance but had later made over the cases to the JFCM-I, Kottayam,] has territorial jurisdiction, in as much as the drawee bank where the cheques are dishonoured is situated within his jurisdiction. After the cases were made over, the same were numbered in 2006. At this stage the petitioners have come before this Court with a prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings against the Crl.M.C. No. 3880 & 3887 OF 2008 -:2:- petitioners. What is the reason? 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheques are not issued for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Civil proceedings have already been initiated. Parties have raised the contentions in the civil case. Security for the amount claimed in the civil suit have already been furnished to the civil court and in these circumstances the continuance of the criminal prosecution would be an abuse of process of the court and blatant denial of justice, submits counsel. 4. I am unable to agree. The contention that the cheques are not issued for the due discharge of a legal debt or liability is certainly one which must be raised before the learned Magistrate in the course of trial. That a civil case is pending or that security has been furnished for the amount claimed in the civil suit is certainly not a reason for this Court to direct indefinite adjournment of the criminal trail in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is not a ground for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. In short, I do not find any sufficient or satisfactory reason Crl.M.C. No. 3880 & 3887 OF 2008 -:3:- which can persuade me to invoke extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners must raise all relevant and appropriate contentions before the learned Magistrate and attempt to substantiate them. 6. These Crl.M.Cs are in these circumstances dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on merits on the rival contentions and no option of the petitioner shall be fettered by the dismissal of these Crl.M.Cs. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3880 & 3887 OF 2008 -:4:- Crl.M.C. No. 3880 & 3887 OF 2008 -:5:-