IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE, 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA ,1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1603 of 2011 ------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/04/2011 IN CMP.286/2011 IN CC.100/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ERNAKULAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------ C.J. BABU, CHAMPAKOTTU HOUSE, PAZHAYANNUR.P.O, VELLARKULAM SITE, TRICHUR - 680 587. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SMT.BINDHU B.NAIR RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SHIBU CHACKO, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, MARUDOMKRA.P.O, KAVILUMPRARA VIA, CALICUT - 673 513. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1603 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 ORDER The challenge in this revision petition is against the order dated 26.4.2011 in CMP No.286 of 2011 in C.C.No.100 of 2005 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam by which the learned Magistrate rejected the request of the petitioner for discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.100 of 2005 wherein the offences alleged against the accused are under Section 420,465,468,479 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The crux of the allegation is that the revision petitioner, after putting his signature on a cheque which does not belong to the account of the petitioner, handed over the same to the complainant with the intention to cheat the complainant. Though initially there was another complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act at the instance of the very same complainant against the wife of the petitioner, who is the second Crl.R.PNO.1603 of 2011 :-2-: accused in the present complaint, who got already a discharge in this case, the same ended in acquittal. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner Mr.Blaze.K.Jose and I have also perused the order impugned. 4. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order at this stage, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is ready to co-operate with the trial, but the learned Magistrate has already issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner as he was not present in the court. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to withdraw the above warrant. Though there is no challenge in this revision petition, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and in the light of the above submission, I am of the view that the petitioner can be relegated to approach the trial court to withdraw the same by moving an application in this regard. In the result, the petitioner is relegated to approach the Crl.R.PNO.1603 of 2011 :-3-: trial court with the prayer to withdraw the non-bailable warrant issued against him and in case the petitioner appears and files such petition, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same positively since the petitioner has already appeared before the court and was defending thew prosecution and also considering the fact that the stage of evidence is not reached so far. I am sure that as the case is instituted upon a private complaint and the custody of the petitioner is not required, the learned Magistrate will consider the same on merit and will pass appropriate orders thereon. Subject to the above direction and observation, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ Crl.R.PNO.1603 of 2011 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Crl.R.PNO.1603 of 2011 :-5-: Dated:..