IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4508 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.873/2002 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. N.KANNRAJ, S/O.NATARAJAN, AGED 47 YRS., T.C.NO.20/959, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-2. 2. N.SURESHKUMAR, S/O.VASU NAIR, AGED 47 YRS., T.C.NO.20/922, CHITHRABHAVAN, MANAKADU LANE, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-2. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. INTEGRATED FINANCE COMPANY LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, KARIMPANAL STATUE AVENUE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, S.VEENEETH BEN, RESIDING AT ARADHANA, AVITTOM ROAD, KANNAMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K.- FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4508 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.873 of 2002 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram for offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Respondent No.1 filed a complaint which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). The police after investigation filed final report (Annexure-A3) stating that petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Case is that petitioners availed a hire purchase loan from respondent No.1 and cheated respondent No.1. Learned counsel for petitioners after arguing the matter for some time has sought permission to withdraw this petition without prejudice to the right of petitioners to seek discharge under Section 239 of the Code. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioners were abroad during the relevant time and did not get summons from the court below. Learned counsel submits that a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the application for bail being presented by petitioners on the date of presentation itself. However no such direction could be issued to consider the application for bail being presented by the petitioners on the same day it is filed. But, having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel, considering the nature of offence alleged and the claim of petitioners that they were abroad, Crl.M.C.No.4508/2010 2 I direct the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on the application for bail without delay and as early as possible. Petition for discharge if any filed by the petitioners is also to be disposed of as early as possible. This petition is disposed of with the above observations and direction. Crl.M.A.No.7212 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks