IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1476 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.467/2009 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/A1 & A2. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. COLOURS OF THE WORLD ADVERTISING, IIND FLOOR,SOORYA TOWERS,KUNNATHURMEDU,PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,SREEKUMAR, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON. 2. SREEKUMAR,AGED ABOUT 34, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON,PROPRIETOR, COLOURS OF THE WORLD ADVERTISING,IIND FLOOR, SOORYA TOWERS,KUNNATHURMEDU,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE. ----------------------------------- 1. MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LTD., VADAKKEKOTTARAM,PADMAVILASAM ROAD,FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE),MR.VENKITTARAMAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C..No.1476 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18 th day of May, 2010 ORDER The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.467 of 2009 on the file of the Addl.CJM's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said case arose out of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent in respect of three dishonoured cheques alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 2. According to the petitioners, the cheques were dishonoured in the year 2003 and the complaint was filed on 4.6.2008 and there is no explanation offered for the inordinate delay for filing the complaint. The petitioner would further contend that the allegations in the complaint would not make out an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 3. It is too early for this Court to consider whether the allegations in the complaint makes out the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. If the offence which is made out is one punishable under Section 420 IPC, then there is no question of any limitation being for the complaint prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C so as to expect an explanation from the complainant Crl. M.C. No.1476 of 2010 2 for the delay because there cannot be any delay. It is essentially for the court below namely Additional CJM, Thiruvananthapuram to consider whether there is a prima facie case made out for framing charge. The petitioners will be entitled to plead for a discharge at the appropriate stage. Since the petitioners are stated to be residing at Palakkad they can plead for a discharge in absentia on filing appropriate petition through their counsel. This Crl.M.C is disposed of reserving the above right of the petitioners. Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj