IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1090 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.179/2011 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MURUGAN M., S/O. MUTHU KRISHNA CHETTIYAR, LAKSHMI MANDIRAM, OKRA-33, MC NO.1948, OLAYILCHERRY, THEVALLI.P.O., WARD NO.8, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/ COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NEETHU KRISHNAN, D/O.LALITHA, KANIYARACHAN VEEDU, WARD NO.49, CANAL ROAD, KOTTAYAKAKAM, KACHERI.P.O., KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAN LAL, PROPRITER SRI. VIKHNEWARA, FEBRICKS, MAIN ROAD, KOLLAM RESIDING AT CURSON, NAGAR-119, -2, CUTCHERY.P.O., KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is second accused in Crime No.179 of 2011 of Kollam West Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.120B and 420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case arose on a private complaint preferred by the first respondent before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollam and forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of first respondent is that she had availed a loan from the second respondent, discharged that liability and when she asked for return of the cheque, second respondent made her believe that he lost that cheque but, later, she got notice from petitioner proposing action under sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereon, first respondent filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging that on account of conspiracy between second respondent and petitioner, the latter handed over the cheque to the petitioner who in turn presented the same and issued notice to the first respondent. Learned counsel submitted that first respondent had borrowed `.6,00,000/- from Crl.M.C.No.1090 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner and issued cheque for the discharge of that liability, her husband has paid `.2,00,000/- and for the balance sum of `.4,00,000/- petitioner filed a complaint before the Sub Court, Kollam and property of the first respondent was attached. That attachment was effected on 17.02.2011. It is thereafter that petitioner issued notice to the first respondent on 04.03.2011. First respondent has chosen to file the complaint against petitioner only on 09.03.2011. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that case was registered on 13.03.2011 and that investigation is on. 2. It is not required for this Court to go into the question whether allegation made by the first respondent in the complaint are correct or not. That is a matter which the police has to investigate in the proper manner and reach appropriate conclusions. But, it is directed that police shall not harass petitioner on account of registration of the case. It is open to the petitioner to move appropriate court for bail or anticipatory bail as law provides. This criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-