IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 354 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- CC.1097/2010 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- RAJU, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, ARUKAKKAL HOUSE, PALACE SQUARE, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.161/2010 OF MULAMTHURUTHY POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.354 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in Crime No.161 of 2010 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station and C.C. No.1097 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act (for short, “the Act”) and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that on getting information the Circle Inspector of Police searched premises of petitioner, seized certain documents and recorded statements of witnesses which according to the Circle Inspector revealed that petitioner, without obtaining licence as required under the provisions of the Act is engaged in money lending business and thereby committed offence under Sec.17 of the Act. The Circle Inspector came to the conclusion that petitioner has cheated his clients who, believing his words borrowed money and gave signed blank cheques/stamp papers, etc. Petitioner prayed for quashing proceeding against him on various grounds including that the alleged detection, investigation and submission of final report are done by the same Officer. After arguing the matter for some time learned counsel sought CRL.M.C. No. 354 of 2011 -: 2 :- permission to withdraw the petition without prejudice to petitioner’s right to take appropriate defence in the trial court. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner wanted to go abroad in connection with his business a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to expedite trial and disposal of the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason why I should not permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice to his right to urge all his contentions before the trial court. So far as the request for early disposal of the case is concerned petitioner has to make his request before the trial court. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take up appropriate defence in the trial court. It is open to the petitioner to make a request for early disposal of the case and if any such request is made, the trial court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders having regard to the urgency pleaded by petitioner. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv