IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 377 of 2007()
1. V.SREEDHARAN NAIR, MANAYATHU CHIRAYIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.N.SAMANDA BHADRAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SMT.PREETHA ANIL RAVEENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/02/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 377 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under
Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. The case was filed as early as in
2003. The case has now reached the stage of evidence.
2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a
prayer that the proceedings initiated against him under
Sec.138 of the N.I. Act may be quashed invoking the powers
under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. What are the reasons? The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
complainant is the complainant in as many as 15 cases, the list
of which is produced as Annexure-B. He has made
complaints against various individuals. The list is not
exhaustive and there are more cases initiated by the
complainant, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the complainant is, thus, a person
who is misusing the provisions of Sec.138 of the N.I. Act. In
these circumstances, it is prayed that the proceedings may be
CRL.M.C.NO. 377 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
quashed. The learned counsel further submits that, as a matter
of fact, the complainant – a moneylender, had advanced only an
amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, he had insisted on the
petitioner handing over two blank signed cheques. Interest is
being paid regularly. But the complainant, misusing one of the
two blank cheques, has initiated proceedings against the
petitioner. He further threatens the petitioner that if the
petitioner chooses to contest this proceeding, he shall make use
of the other blank cheque also.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in
detail. No valid reason has been shown to show that the powers
under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash the
proceedings. The circumstances urged by the petitioner are
circumstances which the petitioner must urge in defence in the
prosecution initiated against him. They do not constitute any
valid reason to quash the proceedings.
4. In conclusion, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that a warrant of arrest has been issued by the learned
Magistrate against the petitioner. The petitioner must appear
before the learned Magistrate and apprise the learned
Magistrate of the circumstances under which he could not
CRL.M.C.NO. 377 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
earlier appear before the learned Magistrate. I have no reason
to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the
application for bail on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously. Orders must be passed on such application on the
date of surrender itself.
5. There is a further grievance raised that an application
to recall the complainant for cross-examination has been
dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner will
certainly be entitled to seek relief in accordance with law against
such dismissal at the appropriate stage.
6. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge