IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4599 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/08/2008 IN CRMP 7085/08 AND CRMP 7086/2008 IN CC.199/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): CW2:- --------------- ANUBU, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHACKNATTU VEETTIL VARANADU PO, CHERTHALA-ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------- 1. SOBY GEORGE, KAKKANATTU VEEDU, NELLIMMATTOM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. BIJU VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, ATTUPURATHU VEETTIL, MANEED- MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR FOR R1 SRI. K.SIJU FOR R1 SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM FOR R2 P.P.SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.M.C. No. 4599 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 O R D E R By Amnmnexure-III order in Crl.M.P.Nos.7085 and 7086 of 2008 in C.C.No.199 of 2008 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam allowed Crl.M.P.No. 7086 of 2008 filed by the second respondent herein (CW1) and ordered to release Rs.3,00,000/-, which was deposited by the accused, pursuant to a direction at the time of granting bail, to him and dismissed Crl.M.P.No.7085 of 2008 filed by the petitioner (CW2) who was also cheated by the first respondent/accused. This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-III order. 2. By Annexure-III order learned Magistrate granted interim custody of the amount deposited by first respondent to second respondent. Petitioner was not granted interim custody. The learned counsel appearing for second respondent submitted that the amount was deposited when in a complaint filed by second respondent, an application for anticipatory bail was moved by first respondent and while granting anticipatory bail, condition was imposed to deposit Rs.3 lakhs before the court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was arrayed as second charge witness, he did not file a separate complaint and for that reason petitioner shall not be deprived of his rights in the amount due to him. Crl.M.C. 4599/08 2 3. On going through the impugned order, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-III order, in view of Annexure-II order passed by this Court. The petitioner is at liberty to file a complaint against first respondent. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Mn.