IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 3229 OF 2009() ----------------------------------------- CC.885/2003 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. LALY, S/O. DAVID, AGED 50 A.F.271, 6TH BLOCK, VASANTH NAGAR, COCHIN-25. 2. K.A.ROBERT, THATHANATHU VEETTIL, LABOUR COLONY, THAMMANAM.P.O., COCHIN-682019. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT IMPLEADED: ----------------------------------------------------------- RATHISH, S/O.THILAKAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KANITAVEETTIL AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK ALLEPPEY DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2009 IN CRL. M.A. NO.5723 OF 2009 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR BY ADVOCATE SHRI K.V.SABU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.3229 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in C.C. No.885 of 2003 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on a complaint preferred by the additional second respondent alleging that first petitioner availed a loan from him for purchase of an old Car. As per the hire purchase agreement additional second respondent has become the owner of the Car and the first petitioner is only its hirer. The vehicle was put in the use of petitioner, no amount was paid to the additional second respondent and in order to cheat him the vehicle was kept concealed. The Ernakulam Town North Police investigated the case and submitted Annexure-A1, final report alleging that first petitioner and second petitioner who is the guarantor have committed offences as above stated. Final report is sought to be quashed in this proceeding. At the time of hearing learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first petitioner is prepared to pay the amount due to the additional second respondent, given some time. CRL.M.C. No.3229 of 2009 -: 2 :- Since petitioners could not appear in the court below non- bailable warrant is issued to them and they are under threat of arrest. Learned counsel submitted that if the amount due to the additional second respondent is paid the offences being compoundable with and without permission of the court, additional second respondent is prepared to compound the offences. 2. Having heard learned counsel on both sides I am inclined to grant two months’ time from this day to the petitioners to discharge liability towards additional second respondent. Since counsel for additional second respondent submitted that first petitioner is employed abroad and he might under the cover of this order go abroad without making payment it is only appropriate that first petitioner is directed to surrender his Passport when he seeks regular bail from the trial court. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Trial of C.C. No.885 of 2003 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam will stand in abeyance for a period of two months from this day or till the matter is CRL.M.C. No.3229 of 2009 -: 3 :- settled between the parties whichever is earlier. (ii) Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioners will stand in abeyance for such period as above stated on condition that first petitioner surrendered his Passport in the trial court within two weeks from this day. (iii) In case the amount is not paid within the period of two months aforesaid, it will be open to the trail court to proceed with the trial of the case. I make it clear that in the meantime it is open to the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate within the time granted hereby and seek regular bail. If any application for bail is preferred by petitioners learned Magistrate shall consider the same having regard to the fact that cognizance of the offences has already been taken and detention of petitioners is not required and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv