IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 83 of 2011() ----------------------- CC.1047/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... (CRIME NO.67/2004 OF E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM) .. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- SAHAJA SATHYAJIT,AGED 45,W/O.SATHYAJITH, VALIYAPARAMBIL VEEDU,SAHAKARANA ROAD, KOCHI-19. BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SMT.M.K.ASWATHI. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA(CRIME NO.67 OF 2004,E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION). 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,(CRIME NO.67/2004) - PIN-682 012. 3. MR.PUSHPAN,S/O.VELAYUDAN,CHITTETHU VEETTIL,SAHAKARANA ROAD,PONNURUNNI DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE - 682 317. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.83 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 15th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is second accused in C.C.No.1047 of 2004 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Secs.465, 420, 379 and 120B r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that the first accused who was working as Accountant in the office of third respondent committed theft of a few blank cheques owned by the third respondent, one of those cheques were given to CW8 through the petitioner for partial discharge of the amount first accused has borrowed from CW8 through the petitioner, that cheque was filled up for two lakhs, presented and got dishonoured. CW8 issued notice to the third respondent. It is the case of prosecution that petitioner conspired with first accused and in furtherance of common intention they committed the said offences. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition without prejudice to the right of petitioner to plead discharge before the learned Magistrate. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Having regard to the contention Crl.M.C.No.83 of 2011 -: 2 :- raised the request is allowed. Resultantly this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioner to plead discharge in absentia, appearing through lawyer before the learned Magistrate. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge