IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2860 of 2008() ------------------------- STC.2855/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- K.V MOHAMMED, AGED 40, S/O HUSSAIN, SYED NAGAR, THALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.PETER THARAKAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. TOPLAND BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT., LTD., AL-FALAH COMPLEX, BELLARD ROAD, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR V.JAMAL HAJI, AGED 51, S/O ABDULL HAJI, 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2860 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is dated 12/6/07. It was dishonoured on 14/6/07. Notice was issued demanding payment as insisted by Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. It was replied to also denying the liability to make payment. It is thereafter that a complaint was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the prosecution against him. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil court is seized of the matter and an order of interim injunction was Crl.M.C. No. 2860 of 2008 -: 2 :- passed on 29/11/07 after hearing the parties restraining the complaint from misusing certain documents including the cheque bearing No.731177 i.e., the cheque in this case. 3. Prima facie, I find no merit in this contention whatsoever. The cheque was admittedly dishonoured on 14/6/07 and the fact that the petitioner had on 29/11/07 obtained the order of injunction against the complainant restraining him from making use of the cheque cannot, in any view of the matter, be held to be a sufficient or satisfactory reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. I shall carefully avoid any more detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all relevant contentions on merits. 5. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not, in any way, fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all Crl.M.C. No. 2860 of 2008 -: 3 :- appropriate and relevant defences before the learned Magistrate. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge