IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 262 of 2009() ------------------------ CRIME NO.175/2006 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. JOYCE ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, PELLISSERY HOUSE, AMMADAM, PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. PRASANNAN T.V.S/O.VASU, THADATHIL HOUSE PARALAM P.O. THRISSUR. 3. ANANTHAKRISHNAN A.M. S/O.MADHAVAN A.K. EDATHEDATH HOUSE, AVINISSERY P.O. THRISSUR. 4. JIJEESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODANNUR P.O. THRISSUR. 5. SHAJI M.V.S/O.VASUDEVAN, MADAMBIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AVINISSERY P.O. THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BHASKARAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, 'ASWATHI' MUNDUR P.O. ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. PREMDAS, S/O.BHASKARAN, MUNDUR P.O. ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 4. LEELA W/O.BASKARAN, MUNDUR P.O. ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK 5. SHALI, W/O.PREMDAS, MUNDUR P.O. ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009 ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.134 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. Nos.262 and 134 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 ORDER As the subject matter of the two Crl.M.Cs are the same/ identical, I am choosing to dispose of these Crl.M.Cs by this common order. 2. Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2009 is filed by the defacto complainants/victims in C.C.No.670 of 2008 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam. The crux of the allegations in that case, where the accused face indictment for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 465 and 506 (i) r/w 149 I.P.C, is that accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly who trespassed into the house of the petitioners and coerced and compelled petitioners 1 and 2 to sign and hand over 8 blank signed cheques to the accused persons. This incident allegedly took place on 22.04.06. A complaint was allegedly filed on 24.04.06 before the police officials. A crime was registered on 06.05.08. After completing investigation, final report was filed arraying accused 1 to 5 (respondents 2 to 6) as accused. Cognizance has been taken. Trial has not commenced. Crl.M.C. Nos.262 and 134 of 2009 2 3. Out of the 8 signed blank signed cheques, 6 were allegedly used after allegedly filling up the details and presented for encashment before the bank. The bank dishonoured the same. Consequently prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 I.P.C have been initiated against the petitioners before various courts in Trichur. They are pending before the courts below as follows: i) C.C.No.966 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Trichur; ii) C.C.No.1448 of 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Trichur; iii) C.C.No.768 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Trichur; iv) S.T.3793 of 2007 of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Trichur. 4. The 1st petitioner herein had come before this Court to quash S.T.No.3793 of 2006 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Trichur and this Court by order dated 31.07.2008 in Crl.M.C.No.2905 of 2006 had rejected the said claim with the observation that the petitioner can move the courts to ensure disposal of the connected cases by the same Crl.M.C. Nos.262 and 134 of 2009 3 court. Accordingly the 1st petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by Annexure-F order turned down the said prayer. 5. According to the petitioners, the allegations in the case pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam (in C.C.No.670 of 2008) and the allegations in the 4 cases referred above pending before the Judicial Magistrates of the First Class at Trichur are in the nature of allegations and counter allegations and the interests of justice would be served ideally by directing transfer and disposal of all the cases by the same court. Such direction, it is submitted, shall advance the interests of justice ideally. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the cases can be transferred to any other court convenient to the respondents within the Trichur district. This in short is the prayer in Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2009. 6. Respondents 2 to 6 in Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2009 have come before this Court with Crl.M.C.No.262 of 2009. They are the accused in C.C.No.670 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam. According to them, the allegations raised against them are totally and completely false. The petitioners in Crl.M.C No.134 of 20909 had issued the Crl.M.C. Nos.262 and 134 of 2009 4 cheques for discharge of legally enforcible debts/liabilities and they are now trying to wriggle out of their obligations to make payment under the cheques in question. The counsel particularly relies on the circumstance that though the alleged incident in C.C.No.670 of 2008 is said to have taken place only on 22.04.06, one of the cheques issued by the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2009 had reached the bank for collection on 21.04.06 as per a receipt signed by the manager of the bank. This knocks the bottom out of the allegations raised in C.C.No.670 of 2008 and therefore that prosecution may be quashed, it is prayed. In support of this assertion the counsel relies on a receipt issued by the manager of the South Indian Bank which is produced as Annexure-F. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2009 fairly accepts that if as a matter of fact the cheque had been handed over to the petitioners on 24.01.06 that would knock the bottom out of the allegations raised in C.C.No.670 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam. But the counsel contends that at the moment and with the available inputs, implicit reliance on Annexure-F cannot be placed. I agree with the learned counsel. Crl.M.C. Nos.262 and 134 of 2009 5 At the moment and with the available inputs and considering the nature of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise, a specific finding that Annexure-F is genuine and that the cheques had actually been handed over to the petitioners on or before 21.04.06 does not appear to be possible and feasible. The prayer to quash C.C.No.670 of 2008 cannot, in these circumstances, be accepted. 8. Needless to say, the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.262 of 2009 can apply before the learned Magistrate for conduct of a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is contended that the Investigating Officer in that case has not at all adverted to the question as to the date on which the cheques were presented before the bank for encashment. That is a crucial input and that aspect has not been investigated at all, contends the learned counsel for the accused. The learned counsel for the accused, ie. petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.262 of 2009 contends that in the light of Annexure-F, at least further investigation deserves to be conducted. It is for the accused persons to move the learned Magistrate if they think that such further investigation must be conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The decision in Shaji v. State of Kerala [2003(2) KLT Crl.M.C. Nos.262 and 134 of 2009 6 929] makes it clear that such application can be made by the petitioners. If such a petition is filed, needless to say, the learned Magistrate will have to consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders. I am satisfied that Crl.M.C.No.262 of 2009 can be dismissed with the above observations. 9. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2009 that the allegations in the 5 cases referred above are in the nature of allegations and counter allegations. I am further satisfied that the interests of justice shall be served ideally by a direction for disposal of all the cases by the same judicial persona. In the interests of avoiding contradictory finding and in the ultimate interests of justice, I am satisfied that such a direction can be issued. 10. In the result: a) Crl.M.C.No.262 of 2009 is dismissed with the above observations; b) Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2009 is allowed. It is directed that the following cases pending before the following courts shall be transferred to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Trichur where C.C.No.966 of 2006 and C.C.No.1448 of 2007 are pending for simultaneous disposal by the same presiding officer. Crl.M.C. Nos.262 and 134 of 2009 7 i) C.C.No.670 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnakkulam; ii) C.C.No.768 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Trichur; iii) S.T.3793 of 2007 of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Trichur. c) The courts concerned shall ensure that all the relevant files are before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Trichur before 02.03.09. d) The parties in these cases shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Trichur on that day without waiting for issue of any further notice from the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Trichur. e) The application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C in C.C.No.670 of 2008 now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam can be filed by the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.262 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Trichur on 02.03.09. f) The learned J.M.F.C-I must ensure that all the 5 cases are disposed of as expeditiously as possible. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-