IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 951 of 2008() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC.1873/2007 IN CMP.434/2008 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------- K.MOHAN, S/O.KULANTHAVEL CHETTIAR, VADAYADIYIL HOUSE, KAIPANCHERRY ROAD, IRIMPANAM P.O., TRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE -------------------------- 1. SMT.RAJINI SALIN, W/O.SALIN, CHETTUPARAMBIL, KARIKKAD P.O., THANNERMUKKAM, CHERTHALA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR,J. ========================= CRL.M.C. NO. 951 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 11th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act registered as C.C.1873/2007 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, challenges the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the petitioner's application filed as CMP 434/2008. 2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate has posted the case for the appearance of the petitioner on 21.11.2008. It was in the meanwhile that the petitioner filed the above CMP seeking to issue a warrant against the accused under Section 87(a) Cr.P.C. and to hand over the warrant to the petitioner for execution. The ground put forward in support of the petition was that he got information from reliable sources that the accused has taken steps for going abroad with a view to escape from the conviction in the above case. 3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application mainly CRL.M.C.951/2008 2 for the reason that the petitioner did not produce any material or affidavit substantiating his contention that the accused was about to go abroad so as to persuade the Magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the case was posted to a near date, the accused would have entered appearance and taken bail, in which case, in the event of the accused jumping bail or fleeing from justice, the petitioner could have proceeded against the sureties. 4. When there was no material before the court to suggest that the accused was taking hasty steps to go abroad with a view to escape from the trial and consequent conviction, the view taken by the Magistrate cannot be faulted. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Magistrate again with proper affidavit or other materials to substantiate his contention. In case the petitioner makes a fresh motion before the Magistrate, as indicated above, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed, according to law. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/ CRL.M.C.951/2008 3