IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3491 of 2007() ------------------------- CC.51/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- MOHAMMAD, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, VILAYIL VEEDU, THEVANPARA, THOLIKKODU P.O., NEDUMANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. D. VINCENT, S/O. DEVASAHAYAM, PROPRIETOR, VINCENT EXPORTS, T.C.3/2784, GURU VIHAR, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3491 of 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 ORDER This petition is filed to quash proceedings initiated against petitioner on the basis of Annexure-A1 complaint. 2. Annexure-A1 complaint was filed by first respondent herein against petitioner alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to allegations in the complaint, petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and in discharge of the said debt petitioner has drawn a cheque. The complainant presented the cheque for collection. But it was dishonoured for the reason “funds insufficient”. A lawyer notice thereafter was sent through a lawyer demanding such payment. But accused did not pay the amount though the notice was served. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the complaint was filed as early as on 7th July, 1997 and during Crl.M.C.No.3491 of 2007 2 the pendency of the case on 7.12.1998, there was a compromise out of court between the parties and cheque involved in this case along with another cheque were returned by the complainant to the petitioner, after receiving the entire amount to his satisfaction. The complainant agreed to withdraw the complaint and also the suit filed before the Munsiff Court in respect of the cheque. He also issued Annexure-A2 receipt endorsing all these facts and also stating that he has no complaint or grievance against petitioner in respect of the said two cheques. Petitioner also produced the original cheque involved in this case, as Annexure-A4. Annexure-A5 is the original of the receipt issued by the complainant. 4. On going through the documents and on hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied of the submissions made by petitioner's counsel that it is only just and proper that further proceedings are quashed, as requested. If the proceedings are continued it will amount to abuse of process of court. Crl.M.C.No.3491 of 2007 3 5. In the result, the following order is passed: 1) The complaint Annexure-A1 is quashed. 2) Petitioner shall not be proceeded further on the basis of Annexure-A1. Petition is allowed. K.Hema, Judge cms