IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 693 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN LP.NO.140/2006 IN CC.833/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- DR.SOBHANAN NAIR, THUNIPPATTUSSERIL, PATOOR MURI, NOORANAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NOORANADU POLICE STATION. 3. K.AJAYAKUMAR, THOTTATHIL, VARANIKKAL, THEKKEKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR FOR R3 SMT.A.SALINI LAL FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.693 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, an Ayurvedic Medical Practitioner by occupation faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Proceedings were initiated as early as in 2003; but the matter has been dragging on. The petitioner had entered appearance before the learned Magistrate. Later, due to his non- appearance before the learned Magistrate, coercive processes were issued against him. The case against him has been transferred to the list of long pending cases. The petitioner has now come to this court in 2008 with a request that the proceedings against him may be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact the cheque in question was not the one issued by the petitioner to the complainant in this case. That was forcibly taken away as a signed blank cheque kept in the premises of the petitioner. According to him, proceedings were initiated against the said persons and an agreement had been entered into between the said person and the petitioner herein in which they had agreed that the cheque shall not be utilised. Contrary to the stipulations of the agreement, the said cheque has now been handed over to the complainant in this case who in turn has staked a false claim on the Crl.M.C.No.693/08 2 basis of the said cheque. This in short is the plea raised. To a pointed question of this court, it is conceded that the notice of demand was not replied to and these contentions are not raised at that stage. 3. In these circumstances, less said about the plea to quash the proceedings the better. I am not persuaded to agree that any circumstances exist justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If the contentions of the petitioner are correct, he must raise those contentions and try to substantiate them before the learned Magistrate. 4. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is in these circumstances dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that there may be a direction to the learned Magistrate to grant the petitioner reasonable time to cross-examine the complainant and adduce evidence on his side to substantiate his contentions. I am satisfied that no specific directions in that regard need be issued in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be entitled to all opportunities to defend himself which the law provides. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.693/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.693/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007