IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 911 of 2005() ------------------------ ST.3299/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA (OS.158/2004) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------ M.SHAKUNTALA, W/O. LATE P.BALAN, MAROLI HOUSE, NEAR MOOLAKKULAM, KUTHUPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.JOYAN P. ANTONY SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SMT.K.AMBILY RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS ZONAL OFFICE AND BRANCH OFFICE AT SHALOM TOWERS,34/138 D,BYEPASS NORTH END, EDAPPALLY,KOCHI-24,REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, SHRI B.M.LAKSHMANAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE FOR R1 SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAI GEORGE FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2992/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.911/05 DISMISSED 29.8.08 SD/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.911 OF 2005 ------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused in S.T.No.3299/04 pending before the Court of J.F.C.M.-I, Aluva with the prayer to quash the complaint, copy of which is produced as Annexure-V. It is also prayed to declare that cheque Nos.158181 to 158187 drawn on Union Bank of India, Kannur Branch handed over by the petitioner to the first respondent is no more a valid Negotiable Instrument as the hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and first respondent stands terminated. 2. The statement of facts alleged in this petition are as follows: The petitioner entered into a hire purchase agreement with the first respondent on 14.11.2002 for purchasing a Swaraj Mazda lorry, No.KL-13 J-637 for a total price of Rs.5,40,000/-. After giving a discount of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.5,20,000/- was fixed as the actual value. The petitioner repaid some amount in instalments and the balance amount was due to the first respondent. Accordingly, the CRL.M.C.NO.911/05 -2- first respondent forcefully repossessed the vehicle on 9.3.2004. As a collateral security at the time of execution of the hire purchase agreement, the petitioner has handed over seven blank cheques, Nos.158181 to 158187 of Union Bank of India, Kannur Branch to the first respondent through its Office at Kannur. After repossession of the vehicle, the petitioner issued a notice to the Branch Manager of the first respondent for the return of cheque Nos.158181 to 158187. Copy of that lawyer notice issued to the first respondent dated 20.3.2004 is produced as Annexure-I. For that notice, a reply notice was sent by the first respondent on 6.4.2004, copy of which is produced as Annexure-II. Annexure-III is produced by the petitioner as the true copy of the lawyer notice dated 26.3.2004 sent by the first respondent to the petitioner herein. Annexure-IV is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.158/04 filed by the petitioner herein as the plaintiff before the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba against three defendants. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the first respondent. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Annexure-V complaint is not maintainable for the reason that the vehicle mentioned in the hire purchase agreement has CRL.M.C.NO.911/05 -3- already been repossessed by the first respondent who is the financier. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that cheque No.158181 mentioned in Annexure V complaint was handed over by the petitioner while executing the hire purchase agreement and the same was handed over with signature, without any other entry like date, amount, etc. So, according to the petitioner, it was a signed blank cheque handed over to the financier at the time of executing the hire purchase agreement. But it has been disputed by the first respondent. The learned counsel has submitted that the cheque in dispute has been handed over to the first respondent after repossession of the vehicle on the basis of a mediation between the first respondent and the petitioner herein and that the cheque when presented for collection was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in respect of which legal action has been taken by the first respondent against the petitioner by filing the complaint, Annexure V. According to the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, that cheque is dated 10.3.2004 and that there is no merit in this petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts and the disputed points raised by both sides, I find that even the date of the disputed cheque is in dispute in CRL.M.C.NO.911/05 -4- respect of which evidence should be adduced by both sides before the Magistrate's Court at the relevant time. This Court cannot enter into a finding on the disputed point of facts which is the duty of the trial Judge. So also, the dispute with regard to the delay in filing the compliant, etc. as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and whether sufficient ground is there to condone the delay, etc. are to be raised before the concerned court, for which the learned Magistrate is bound to enter into a finding and this Court cannot go through those facts under the inherent jurisdiction envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as prayed for in this petition. Hence, there is no merit in this petition and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this petition is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest untrammeled by the observations in this Crl.M.C. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn