IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE H.L. DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WA.No. 2006 of 2008() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.17464/2006 Dated 27/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S)-PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- DR.VARGHESE MUNDACKAL, HON.MANAGING DIRECTOR, EMTEX INTERNATIONAL LTD., DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-16. BY ADV. DR.VARGHESE MUNDAKKAL (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CJM COURT AT ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. DY.DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, CJM COURT AT ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 4. BABY SRAMBICKAL, S/O.S.P.ANTONY, SRAMBICKAL HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. 5. SANTHOSH ANTONY, S/O.JOSEPH ANTONY, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, RAMALOOR/KARINGAZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 6. M.C. SAJUMON, S/O. CHERIAN, RUKYA APARTMENT, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MEERA BY ADVOCATE SHRI REJO JOSEPH R5 BY ADVOCATE SHRI SHAIJAN C.GEOGE R6 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. No.2006 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- Thomas P.Joseph, J. Heard the appellant who appeared in person. (2) Appellant is the de facto complainant in C.C. No.2187 of 2002 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 457, 461, 380, and 467 read with 34 IPC. That case was directed against Respondents 4 to 6. It appears that 4th respondent/first accused is absconding. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate decided to proceed against respondents 5 and 6 and posted the case to record evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the appellant after splitting up the case against the 4th respondent. At that point of time appellant filed a petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate requesting the latter to record evidence under Section 299 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for reasons stated in the order dated 28.6.2006 rejected that petition (Crl.M.P. No.2448/2006) and posted the case to proceed further against respondents 5 and 6. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant (de facto complainant) filed Writ Petition No.17464 of 2006 in this Court requesting to quash the order W.A. No.2006 of 2008 -: 2 :- dated 28.6.2006 in Crl. M.P. No.2448 of 2006. Learned Single Judge was inclined to grant interim stay of further proceedings in C.C. No.2187 of 2002. As per order dated 27.8.2008 the learned Single Judge vacated the interim stay. Appellant is aggrieved and has come up in appeal. (3) Appellant submits that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was bound to record evidence under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. Though appellant addressed arguments regarding the correctness and legality of the order dated 28.6.2006 in Crl. M.P. No.2448 of 2006, it is not necessary for us to consider those arguments since the matter is still pending before the learned Single Judge. We are now concerned only with the order dated 27.8.2008 whereby learned Single Judge vacated the interim order of stay earlier granted. (4) It is seen that the case is of the year 2002 and there was direction from this Court to expedite the trial and disposal of the case. There is also a case pending against the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the cheque which is also the subject matter of C.C. No.2187 of 2002 and the trial of that case is stayed till the disposal of C.C. No.2187 of 2002. We also find from the order under challenge that at the time the Writ Petition itself came up for hearing, appellant wanted to amend the Writ Petition in the light of certain further facts which the appellant thought is required W.A. No.2006 of 2008 -: 3 :- to be mentioned in the Writ Petition. It is taking into consideration these facts that learned Single Judge vacated the interim stay. (5) After having given an anxious consideration of the arguments of the appellant concerning the correctness of the order under challenge, we are not inclined to think that there is any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the learned Single Judge vacating the interim order of stay. As such, no interference is required. Appeal therefore is dismissed. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv