IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 228 of 2010() ------------------------ ST.6/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.IV,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ABEY, AGED 44, S/O.JOSEPH, KARAMAYIL HOUSE, PONEDATH, KAROOR P.O. PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE MOOKAMBIKA COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, NO.4, LADY DESIKA ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI,REPRESNTED BY KOTTAYAM BRANCH MANAGER, SUNIL KUMAR V.K. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.228 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to have Annexure A1 complaint quashed. 2. Petitioner is the accused in S.T No.6/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kottayam for having committed offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Copy of the complaint is produced as Annexure A1. 3. The matter relates to a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-5L-6397 which stood in the registered name of one Salu Francis which was hypothecated by the 2nd respondent. The vehicle was offered to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent and it was agreed that, on executing the hire purchase agreement and giving the blank signed cheques, the vehicle will be handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner has executed an hire purchase agreement trusting the words of the 2nd respondent and in advance handed over the signed blank cheques. Copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle is produced as Annexure A2. Crl.M.C No.228 OF 2010 Page numbers 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that contrary to the words of agreement, the vehicle was not handed over to him. Instead the 2nd respondent delivered the vehicle to a stranger. Therefore the petitioner never came to be in possession of the vehicle. Petitioner says that he has no liability towards the 2nd respondent and the proceedings are abuse of the process of the court. 5. It is also contended that later on the 2nd respondent had taken recourse to gone for an arbitration and an award was passed without serving notice to the petitioner and it is produced as Annexure A3. It is contended that since an arbitration award was passed, prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be continued. 6. In support of the above contention the learned counsel relies on the decision of this Hon'ble Court in “Sudha Beevi v State of Kerala” (2004(2) KLT Page 746). 7. On going through the records it is seen that the complaint has laid as early on 2007 and cognizance was taken then. From the records it appears that the arbitration proceedings commenced thereafter. If the petitioner has a contention that passing of award without notice and it is not Crl.M.C No.228 OF 2010 Page numbers proper to continue the proceedings before the court below, there is no reason to believe that the court below will not consider such a contention if raised by the petitioner. It is not a matter for this court now to go into these proceedings. 8. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to move on the above lines, petition is disposed. If the petitioner files a petition before the court below urging the above grounds, it shall be considered as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of filing of the petition. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv