IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 122 of 2011 ------------------------ CC.541/2008 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------- P.K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O.KUMARAN NAIR, 'LAKSHMI NIVAS', WEST KADUNGALLOOR P.O., ALUVA -683110 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. K.G.MATHEW, S/O.LATE GEORGE, KEERAMPILLY HOUSE, KARSHAKA ROAD, KOCHI-23 2. SALIM KUMAR R GALAXY APARTMENT KALOOR, KOCHI - 17 3. STATE OF KERALA REP.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 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.122 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.541 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ernakulam for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the NI Act”), on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1. His case is that petitioner borrowed `.4,55,000/- and for discharge of that liability issued cheque dated 13.06.2005 which on presentation was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Respondent No.1 got dishonour information on 21.07.2005. Following that, he issued notice to the petitioner on 26.07.2005. That notice was served on petitioner on 06.08.2005. But there was no reply, nor payment. Hence the complaint. According to the petitioner, there was no such transaction or consideration for issuance of the cheque. Instead, Salim Kumar (respondent No.2) obtained forged bank guarantee of Bank of Maharashtra and on its strength obtained signed blank cheques from the petitioner one of which was misused and the complaint was filed against petitioner through respondent No.1. Annexure-5 is the complaint petitioner has filed against respondent No.2 and others. In the circumstances, it is requested that the complaint against petitioner and the proceedings in C.C.No.541 of 2008 may be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.122/2011 2 2. Whatever that is stated in this petition may be a defence which petitioner is entitled to take up in the trial of C.C.No.451 of 2008. But, on the strength of those defence which petitioner is yet to establish in the court where the case is pending, complaint against him cannot be quashed. I do not find reason to interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks