IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3067 of 2010() ------------------------- CC.639/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,KOYILANDY .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONR/ACCUSED -------------------------------- KUNHIMON @ PHILIPOSE, S/O. JOHN, THEKKAYIL HOUSE, CHEMBUKADAVU, P.O.NELLIPOYIL MEEMUTTY, KODENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RASHEED P.P., S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 41 YEARS, POOLADIPARAMBATH HOUSE, ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3067 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.639/2008 on the file of the J.F.C.M Court, Koyilandy, which is a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving a cheque for Rs.65,000/-, seeks to quash the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Magistrate in CMP.No.2093/2010, as per which the petitioner sought a direction to call for a register from the Panchayath to show the correct address of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the address shown in the statutory notice was not his correct address and he did not receive the notice. The above petition was filed when the case was posted for defence evidence. 2. The learned Magistrate has given valid reasons as to why the aforesaid application is not liable to be entertained. It was in the very same address shown in the complaint that the statutory notice was also issued and it was returned unserved with the endorsement “gate locked”. But the accused was served in the very same address even though it was the police who served the notice and according to him not Crl.M.C. No. 3067 OF 2010 : 2 : in the address shown in the complaint but in his correct address. He did not raise any objection regarding the address shown in the complaint as soon as he entered appearance. He did not show the allegedly correct address either in the Vakkalath filed by his counsel or while recording his plea. Even at the stage of 313 examination he had no case that the address shown in the notice as well as the complaint was wrong. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, this criminal M.C is dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb