IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 OP(CRL.).NO. 1507 OF 2011(Q) ------------------------------------------- ST. NOS.2082, 2083 AND 2084/2009 OF THE COURT CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: ------------------- P.N.SURESH, PALAKKATT, KUSUMAGIRI, MAPRANAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. M.K.SARATHCHANDRAN UNNITHAN, II 152 B, THRIKKARTHIKA, FRIENDS NAGAR, MOOLEPPADAM ROAD, VAZHAKKALA, PIN-682 030. 2. LATHA SARATHCHANDRAN, II 152 B, THRIKKARTHIKA, FRIENDS NAGAR, MOOLEPPADAM ROAD, VAZHAKKALA, PIN-682 030. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(Crl.) No.1507 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner filed Exts.P1 to P3, complaints – S.T. Nos.2082, 2083 and 2084 of 2009 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The first two cases are against the second respondent while the third case is against her husband, the first respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the cases are being adjourned and that there is no progress for the said cases. Now the cases are posted on 20.4.2011. Learned counsel submitted that in the meantime petitioner has filed a civil suit against respondents 1 and 2 and the arrears of salary of second respondent who is employed with the Central Excise was attached but the second respondent who is the Administrative Officer (allegedly) removed the order of attachment from the file. According to the learned counsel the result is that petitioner is not getting relief in the civil suit or the criminal cases. It is therefore prayed that a direction may be given to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to dispose of the cases as early as possible. O.P(Crl.) No.1507 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Without understanding the volume of work of the court concerned and priority for disposal of older cases it is not proper for this court to issue any direction for a time bound disposal of the cases. At the same time grievance of petitioner is also to be addressed. It is stated that attempt to attach arrears of salary of the second respondent did not fructify allegedly due to the intervention of second respondent. It is appropriate that if possible the criminal cases are disposed of as early as possible if there is no legal impediment in doing so. 3. It is therefore directed that if petitioner makes a request for early disposal of S.T. Nos.2082, 2083 and 2084 of 2009, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider the grievance of petitioner and pass necessary orders without waiting for a direction for time bound disposal of the cases. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv