IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2286 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.639/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- USHA, W/O.CHANDRAN.K.R., KARANATHU VEEDU PO.VIYYUR, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. P.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KANNIMANGALAM DESOM, PULIKKAPARAMBIL, THRISSUR TALUK REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PA.BABY 48 YEARS S/O.PULIKKAPARAMBIL APPUKUTTAN,CHEMBUTHRA DESOM PO.PATTIKKADU,THRISSUR 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2286 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the case of the complainant that the cheque was issued for the due discharge of an enforcible debt/liability by the petitioner to the complainant. It is the defence of the petitioner, raised even in the reply notice, that the cheque was handed over as a blank signed cheque as security by the husband of the petitioner to the complainant and the said blank signed cheque so handed over as security is being misutilised by the complainant with mala fide intention to vex and harass the petitioner and her husband. This defence has been raised in the reply notice itself. On coming to know of the notice of demand, the petitioner has already filed a complaint before the police under the Money Lenders Act. It is submitted at the Bar that in the said crime investigation is complete and final report has been filed before the learned Magistrate. 2. What is the grievance of the petitioner now ? The petitioner claims that the criminal adjudicatory processes had Crl.M.C. No.2286 of 2008 2 been resorted to with mala fide intention and therefore proceedings are liable to be brought to premature termination. The petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of such undeserved criminal prosecution, it is urged. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. I have perused the records. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion about the acceptability of the allegations against the petitioner or the defences which she wants to raise in the prosecutions pending. But suffice it to say that at the moment and with the available inputs, it is not possible for the Court to decide whether the assertions of the complainant are correct or whether offences raised by the petitioner are correct. The mere fact that Annexure-E final report has been filed by the police does not clinch or conclude the issue nor can that deprive the complainant of his right to prosecute the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is no warrant for invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all her contentions. Such contentions will have to be considered on merits by the learned Magistrate untrammeled by any observations made in this order or the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. Crl.M.C. No.2286 of 2008 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be a direction to exempt the personal appearance of the petitioner in this prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is for the petitioner to make such a request before the learned Magistrate and I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate will not consider and dispose of that application in accordance with law, on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-