IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2058 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ST.4689/05,4954/05 & CC.549/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ---------------------- ALEX PAUL,S/O.PAUL AGED 47 YEARS, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, NELLANKARA DESOM, NETTISSERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS: STATE -------------------- 1. ANTISON VARGHESE,S/O.VARGHESE, AYNICKAL HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA,THRISSUR. 2. SAMSON VARGHESE,S/O.VARGHESE, AYNICKAL HOUSE,MARATHAKKARA,THRISSUR. 3. TH STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1-2 SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN FOR R1-2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2058 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 ORDER Petitioner who is the common accused in S.T. case Nos.4689 & 4954 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thrissur which are prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeks a direction to the Magistrate to conduct simultaneous trial of the above cases along with C.C.No.549 of 2008 filed by the petitioner three years thereafter alleging that the cheques in question along with other cheques were issued at the time of the petitioner availing the loan and that even after discharging the loan, the cheques were retained by the complainant in those cases who are brothers. According to the petitioner the two S.T. cases and C.C. case constitute “case and counter” covered by the decision of the full bench in 1982 KLT 351 and therefore it is only just and proper that all those three cases are tried by the same court one after the other and judgment pronounced in quick succession. Crl.M.C.No.2058/2010 : 2 : 2. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that C.C.No.549 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner three years after the prosecution in the S.T. cases and that they do not constitute “case and counter”. 3. If according to the petitioner the above cases constitute “case and counter” then he should have moved the trial court itself namely, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thrissur for consecutive trial. He cannot straightaway approach this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction as prayed for. This Criminal M.C. is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the trial court in case those cases constitute “case and counter” as contended by him. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj